(영문) 광주지방법원 2020.06.09 2018가단525441

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 광주지방법원 2020.06.09 2018가단525441

건물명도(인도)

Text

1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. On August 24, 2016, Defendant B leased the instant building by setting the lease term to August 24, 2018.

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). The Plaintiff purchased the instant building from D and completed the registration of ownership transfer on May 2, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. In the Plaintiff’s assertion, Defendant B transferred the right to lease of this case’s lease to Defendant C. The Defendants changed the business to hambur delivery business, and beer, while engaging in the instant building in the delivery business of swine saburine, and did not notify the Plaintiff thereof.

Therefore, the instant lease contract is terminated.

Preliminary, Defendant B did not demand the Plaintiff to renew the instant lease agreement, and the instant lease agreement was terminated on August 24, 2018.

Therefore, Defendant B is obligated to deliver the instant building, and Defendant C is obligated to leave the instant building.

B. Defendant C’s assertion was an employee of Defendant B, and Defendant C did not transfer the right to lease of this case’s lease.

The change of business does not require the consent of the plaintiff or notification to the plaintiff.

Defendant C demanded the Plaintiff to renew the instant lease agreement on May 26, 2018.

C. According to the results of the Defendant B’s reply on May 8, 2020 on whether to terminate the instant lease agreement, Defendant B’s transfer of the instant lease agreement, E’s testimony by witness E and the submission order of financial transaction information to F organizations, and there was testimony that E had engaged in a business partnership with the Defendants at the time of the visit to the instant building, and that Defendant B had conducted a business partnership with the Defendants at the time of the visit to the building, and that the sales under the credit card merchant agreement that Defendant B joined as the business registration number were made in the account of Defendant B’s name.

유사 판례

-제주지방법원 2015.02.06 2014가단5059

-춘천지방법원 강릉지원 2018.02.07 2017가단4269

-부산지방법원 2015.07.03 2015가단213205

-수원지방법원 안산지원 2018.12.19 2017가단51832

-대전지방법원서산지원 2015.11.11 2015가단1644