(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2018.08.29 2018가단200215

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) 서울남부지방법원 2018.08.29 2018가단200215

건물명도(인도)

Text

1. The request for intervention by an independent party intervenor shall be rejected;

2. The defendant shall provide the plaintiff with the attached list.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On September 27, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Intervenor on the terms of the lease deposit of KRW 10 million, monthly rent of KRW 1300,000,000, and the lease term of October 15, 2014. On September 23, 2014, the said lease agreement was renewed by the end of October 15, 2017, with the lease term of KRW 150,000,000 per month, and the lease term of KRW 150,000 per month as of October 15, 2017.

B. On January 4, 2016, at the request of the Intervenor who is a lessee, the Plaintiff allowed the Defendant to use the instant store during the said lease period, and the Defendant completed business registration with the trade name of D real estate at the instant store and is running real estate brokerage business.

C. On March 22, 2017, which was six months before the expiration of the instant lease agreement, the Plaintiff sent an intervenor a notice of the termination of the lease agreement and the declaration of intent to refuse the contract renewal due to the expiration of the period, and the said notice was served on the intervenor on March 24, 2017, and the intervenor was notified several times of the same content certification even thereafter.

However, on November 6, 2017, the Intervenor did not deliver the instant store, and the Plaintiff deposited KRW 10,000,000 as the deposit money with the Intervenor as the principal deposit.

[Grounds for recognition] The entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 20 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether an application for intervention by an independent party is lawful;

A. In a case where the plaintiff seeks to deliver the store of this case against the defendant who permitted the use during the lease period at the request of the intervenor following the expiration of the term of the lease contract of this case, the intervenor is merely merely a person who is used without compensation as the intervenor's partner, and the intervenor seeks confirmation on the premise that the intervenor occupies the present store of this case. The premium paid by the intervenor to the plaintiff when concluding the lease contract.

유사 판례

-대전지방법원공주지원 2020.10.22 2020가단20592

-서울서부지방법원 2017.08.10 2015가합37986

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.11.01 2018가단5132861

-광주지방법원순천지원 2020.07.22 2019가단70855 (1)

-부산지방법원 2020.11.26 2019가단330849