(영문) 부산지방법원 2018.11.07 2018가단5108

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) 부산지방법원 2018.11.07 2018가단5108

건물명도(인도)

Text

1. The Defendant shall deliver to the Plaintiff the building indicated in the attached Form’s indication and the attached Form’s drawings.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

Reasons

1. Facts recognized;

A. On August 1, 2011, the Plaintiff (Lessee) and the Defendant (Lessee) concluded a lease agreement with a deposit of KRW 20 million, monthly rent of KRW 1.5 million, and the lease period of KRW 24 months on the building indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant building”).

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). B.

On August 2, 2013, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a renewal contract for the extension of the instant lease agreement, and set the monthly rent at KRW 1.3 million and the rental period at KRW 24 months.

After that, the instant lease agreement was explicitly renewed between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and the re-contract was concluded on September 5, 2016, by extending the instant lease agreement for 24 months and adjusting the monthly rent.

C. On March 2, 2018, the Plaintiff sent a content-certified mail to the Defendant, and expressed his/her intent to refuse and terminate the instant lease agreement.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, each entry in Gap evidence 1-3 (including a provisional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of determination, the instant lease agreement was terminated on September 4, 2018 upon the Plaintiff’s declaration of rejection to renew the lease on March 2, 2018.

Since five years have passed since the date of the first conclusion of the instant lease agreement, the right to request renewal under the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act is not recognized.

The right to claim damages due to the Defendant’s violation of the duty not to interfere with the collection of premiums, even if it is recognized, cannot be deemed that the duty of compensation and the duty of delivery of the Defendant are in the simultaneous performance relationship.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to deliver the building of this case to the plaintiff.

3. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion is justified and accepted.

참조조문

-상가건물 임대차보호법

유사 판례

-대전지방법원논산지원 2020.09.24 2020가단10582

-부산지방법원 2019.05.16 2018가단25218

-전주지방법원 2017.12.08 2017가단10789

-전주지방법원 2017.08.18 2016가단21140

-대구지방법원 2017.01.10 2016가단18316