logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2018.09.06 2018가단114663
건물명도(인도)
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the entries in Gap evidence 1 to 4 and the overall purport of the pleadings:

B On March 19, 2016, on the second floor of the building listed in the separate sheet, which is a commercial building, leased deposit money of KRW 35,000,00, monthly rent of KRW 2,00,00 (excluding value-added tax), and the lease period of KRW 2,00,00,00 from April 26, 2016 to April 25, 2018, among the two floors of the building listed in the separate sheet attached hereto, to the Defendant.

(hereinafter referred to as “the lease of this case”) B.

On April 10, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with B on the building listed in the separate sheet, and the same year.

7. 10. The registration of ownership transfer for the above building is completed in the future of the plaintiff on the ground of the above sale.

C. The Defendant did not pay the instant rent for May 2017, 2017, the rent for June 2017, and the rent for July 2017 regarding the instant lease, but paid the said overdue rent en bloc.

On March 26, 2018, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the demand for renewal of the lease of this case.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. In a case where the lessee is in arrears with the amount equivalent to the three-year rent pursuant to Article 10(1)1 of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act, the lessor may refuse the lessee’s request for renewal.

In addition, it should be interpreted that the three-year grace period as mentioned above does not mean only where the three-year grace period is in arrears in relation to the same lessor, but also includes cases where the said three-year grace period is in arrears by adding up the period before and after the succession in cases where the status of the lessor is succeeded.

However, the Defendant did not delay the lease of this case at least three times from May 2017 to July 201 of the same year. Thus, the ownership of the building listed in the attached Table on July 10, 2017 during the above overdue period is the ownership of the building.

arrow