(영문) 수원지방법원안산지원 2016.01.22 2015가단106486

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) 수원지방법원안산지원 2016.01.22 2015가단106486

건물명도

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. On May 15, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a contract on the lease of the instant apartment, which is a residential building, with a deposit of KRW 190,00,000 without monthly rent, and the period from June 29, 2012 to June 28, 2014 (hereinafter “instant lease contract”), and around that time, the fact that the instant apartment was delivered to the Defendant is nonexistent between the parties, or may be recognized by taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings as set forth in subparagraphs A and 2.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff asserted by the parties: (a) notified the Defendant of the refusal of renewal on April 2014, which occurred between six months and one month before the expiration date of the instant lease agreement; and (b) the said lease was terminated on June 28, 2014 upon the expiration of the period from six months to one month.

Therefore, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff has the duty to deliver the apartment of this case.

As to this, the defendant asserts that the lease contract of this case was implicitly renewed since the plaintiff did not notify the plaintiff of the rejection of renewal within the period from six months to one month prior to the expiration of the above lease term.

B. We find it difficult to acknowledge that the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the refusal to renew the instant lease agreement on April 2014 only with the descriptions of the evidence Nos. 3 through 5, and Nos. 1 and 2, and otherwise, there is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the refusal to renew the lease agreement during the period from six months to one month before the arrival of June 28, 2014.

Therefore, pursuant to Article 6 of the Housing Lease Protection Act, the instant lease agreement was implicitly renewed for two years from June 29, 2014.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion based on the premise that the above lease was terminated is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

참조조문

-주택임대차보호법 제6조

유사 판례

-서울북부지방법원 2014.05.09 2014가단102637

-창원지방법원통영지원 2015.02.17 2014가단9464

-부산지방법원 2015.09.18 2014가단251811

-수원지방법원평택지원 2015.04.15 2014가단18105

-부산지방법원 2015.09.17 2015가단8502