(영문) 창원지방법원마산지원 2017.12.28 2017가단4976

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) 창원지방법원마산지원 2017.12.28 2017가단4976

건물명도(인도)

Text

1. The Defendant delivers to the Plaintiff the real estate indicated in the separate sheet, and from December 12, 2016, the said real estate.

Reasons

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The Plaintiff, on September 9, 2016, as the owner of the real estate listed in the separate sheet, leased the said real estate with the period of KRW 2 million, KRW 200,000 per month, and KRW 2 million from September 11, 2016 to September 11, 2018. (2) The Defendant did not pay the rent under the said lease from December 12, 2016 to December 30, and the Plaintiff expressed the Defendant’s intent to terminate the lease due to overdue payment by mail, which reaches the Defendant on June 1, 2017.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the above facts of determination, the above lease contract was lawfully terminated by the Plaintiff’s declaration of intention to terminate the lease contract due to the Defendant’s default of at least three rents. The Defendant is obligated to deliver the real estate indicated in the separate sheet to the Plaintiff, deliver the real estate indicated in the separate sheet to the Plaintiff, and pay the overdue rent or unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent in arrears calculated by the ratio of KRW 200,000 per month from December 12, 2016 to

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The defendant's assertion that the defendant made an oral promise to allow the plaintiff to install a signboard, electronic display board, banner, etc., but failed to do so, and the defendant failed to conduct its business, thereby failing to pay it monthly.

B. The Plaintiff promised to allow the Defendant to install a signboard, electronic display board, or banner.

There is no evidence to prove that such a promise has interfered with the installation of the Defendant’s signboard, etc.

Even if the Plaintiff did not implement such a promise even though it did not correspond to the essential elements of the real estate lease, it cannot be deemed that such circumstance alone constitutes a justifiable reason for refusing to pay rent.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is not accepted.

3. The plaintiff's claim is justified.

유사 판례

-부산지방법원 2018.11.01 2016가단340050

-대구지방법원 2018.04.04 2017나10136

-의정부지방법원고양지원 2020.10.23 2019가단6464

-수원지방법원 2018.10.11 2018나63822

-전주지방법원 정읍지원 2017.03.23 2016가단12531