(영문) 수원지방법원안산지원 2019.07.24 2018가단55398

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 2019.07.24 2018가단55398

건물명도(인도)

Text

1. The Defendants jointly do so to the Plaintiff:

(a) deliver the real estate listed in the separate sheet;

B. 4,800,000 won and April 2018

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On June 10, 2015, the Plaintiff, the owner of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) entered into a lease agreement with Defendant B, which stipulates that the instant real estate shall be KRW 5 million, KRW 400,000,000,000 in a deposit, KRW 400,000 in a rent month, and the term of lease from June 30, 2015 to June 30, 2017 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

B. However, even though Defendant B was not delegated with the authority to conclude a lease contract by the Plaintiff, it is deemed that the Plaintiff’s agent was the Plaintiff, and on July 4, 2015, Defendant C entered into a lease contract with Defendant C, setting the deposit amount of KRW 65 million with respect to the instant real estate and the period of KRW 2 years with respect to the instant real estate (hereinafter “instant lease contract”), and Defendant C moved into the instant real estate on August 1, 2015 and possessed the instant real estate up to the day.

C. On March 9, 2018, the Plaintiff notified Defendant B of the termination of the instant lease agreement on the ground of a 11-month grace period until around that time, while the instant lease agreement was explicitly renewed even after the expiration of the original term of lease. The said notification reached Defendant B on March 19, 2018.

Defendant B did not pay to the Plaintiff a total of 4.8 million won for 12 months from April 2017 to March 2018, which is the tea under the instant lease agreement.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's 1 through 6, Eul's 1, 2, Eul's 1, and Eul's 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination:

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to a request for the delivery of a building, Defendant C directly occupies the real estate of this case without the consent of the Plaintiff, who is the owner of the real estate of this case, and Defendant C was, at the time of the lease contract of this case, entitled to act on behalf of the Plaintiff to act on behalf of the Plaintiff at the time of the lease contract of this case, or has justifiable grounds for reliance on it

유사 판례

-대전지방법원천안지원 2019.02.27 2018가단112778

-서울동부지방법원 2018.04.17 2017가단22200

-수원지방법원 안산지원 2018.01.23 2017가단18996

-수원지방법원 2015.10.21 2014가단4206

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.01.31 2018가합569472