(영문) 전주지방법원 2018.09.21 2016나7008 | 리걸엔진

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) 전주지방법원 2018.09.21 2016나7008

건물명도

Text

1. The judgment of the first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's main claim is dismissed;

2. An objection to the trial;

Reasons

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The pertinent Plaintiff is the owner of the instant housing, and the Defendant is the lessee who concluded a lease agreement with the Plaintiff regarding the said housing.

B. Around September 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant, setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 15 million and the lease term of the instant house as two years (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). Around that time, the Defendant paid KRW 15 million to the Plaintiff according to the said lease agreement.

C. On April 8, 2016, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a certificate of content that the instant lease agreement had expired, and thus, the said certificate reached the Defendant around that time. 2) The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendant seeking the transfer of the instant house against the Defendant on the same day, and the Defendant filed the instant counterclaim seeking the return of the lease deposit and the reimbursement of beneficial expenses against the Plaintiff at the trial.

3) The Defendant delivered the instant house to the Plaintiff prior to the delivery of the duplicate of the instant counterclaim to the Plaintiff. [Grounds for recognition] The Defendant did not dispute with the Plaintiff, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence Nos. 2, 3, 5, 7 (including the branch number; hereinafter the same shall apply)

each entry, the purport of the whole pleading

2. According to the facts of the judgment on the main claim, the lease contract of this case was terminated at the expiration of the period, and the defendant has already performed the duty of delivery of the house of this case as the restoration upon the termination of the above lease contract. Thus, the main claim of this case seeking the delivery of the above house against the defendant is without merit.

3. Judgment on the counterclaim

A. According to the above recognition on the ground of the claim for the refund of lease deposit, the lease contract of this case was terminated upon the expiration of the period of validity.

As such, the plaintiff is the defendant.

유사 판례

-창원지방법원 2016.09.22 2016가단106387

-춘천지방법원강릉지원 2016.01.19 2015나1830

-서울남부지방법원 2020.05.19 2019가단19317

-서울남부지방법원 2021.04.22 2020가합112837

-서울동부지방법원 2018.07.12 2018가단2203