(영문) 울산지방법원 2014.11.05 2014가단11450

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) 울산지방법원 2014.11.05 2014가단11450

건물명도

Text

1. The Defendant indicated in the attached list 159.26 square meters on the 1st floor of the building listed in the attached list to the Plaintiff, and indicated in the attached list 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1.

Reasons

1. On February 18, 2012, the Plaintiff: (a) provided the Defendant with a notice of termination without renewal of the instant lease agreement on February 17, 2014 (hereinafter “instant lease”); (b) the Plaintiff, on February 17, 2012, on the leased deposit deposit amounting to KRW 10,000,00, and the monthly rent of KRW 600,000 (hereinafter “instant lease”); and (c) the Plaintiff provided the Defendant with a notice of termination on February 17, 2014, stating that the instant lease agreement was terminated without renewal on or around February 17, 2014, based on the evidence No. 1, evidence No. 4-1, and evidence No. 1, No. 4-2.

Therefore, the instant lease contract was terminated upon the expiration of the term.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to deliver the building of this case to the plaintiff, except in special circumstances.

2. The defendant, first of all of the judgment on the defendant's defense, did not lease the reconstructed building to the defendant even though the plaintiff agreed to reconstruct the building of this case at the time of the conclusion of the lease contract of this case and to lease it again to the defendant, so it is not possible to respond to the plaintiff's request for delivery of the building. However, there is no evidence to prove that the plaintiff agreed to reconstruct the building of this case and lease it again to the defendant

Next, the defendant defense that the plaintiff can respond to the plaintiff's claim to pay the premium and the expenses incurred in leasing the building of this case. However, according to the Gap evidence No. 1, the defendant's premium at the time of the lease of this case is not recognized, and the defendant is only recognized to have agreed to restore the building of this case to its original state at the time of termination of the lease of this case. Thus, this part of the defendant's defense

3. The plaintiff's claim is justified.

유사 판례

-인천지방법원부천지원 2015.08.21 2015가합891

-창원지방법원 2018.03.30 2017가단15310

-대전지방법원천안지원 2016.07.25 2016가단6855

-인천지방법원부천지원 2016.07.21 2016가단12696

-수원지방법원 2019.07.25 2018가단512224