logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2018.10.25 2017가단106664
건물명도(인도)
Text

1. The plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendant B dismissed the part of the charge for compelling the performance.

2. Attached list to the Plaintiff.

Reasons

On November 14, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant to lease each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant commercial building”) with the lease deposit amounting to KRW 5 million monthly rent of KRW 90 million (excluding value-added tax) and from the date of the delivery of the said commercial building until December 21, 2016, with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant commercial building”).

(hereinafter “instant lease.” The Defendant paid to the Plaintiff a deposit of KRW 90 million under the instant lease agreement on several occasions, and the Plaintiff transferred the instant commercial building to the Defendant around September 2014.

The Plaintiff and the Defendant paid rent from October 1, 2014 to October 31, 2014, and agreed to exempt rent for one month from December 1, 2014 to December 31, 2014.

Although the Plaintiff completed all of the VAT declarations under the instant lease agreement, the Defendant did not pay value-added tax to the Plaintiff other than KRW 3 million in total, and did not pay monthly rent after March 2017.

The defendant subleases part of the commercial buildings of this case to C, etc.

On December 28, 2016, the Plaintiff delayed the payment of two or more rents, and sent to the Defendant a document verifying the content that the instant lease contract is terminated on the ground that the Plaintiff sub-leases part of the instant commercial buildings without the Plaintiff’s consent.

Meanwhile, from October 1, 2014 to May 31, 2018, the sum of the rents that the Defendant is obliged to pay to the Plaintiff (44 months) was KRW 236,50,000 [excluding the monthly portion from December 1, 2014 to December 31, 2014 x 5.5 million]. The Defendant paid to the Plaintiff a total of KRW 132,760,000 (=236,50,000-132,760,000), and the remainder was unpaid.

[Grounds for recognition] The removal and the delivery of land, such as facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 4, Gap evidence 7 through 10, the whole purport of pleading, etc., and the purport of the whole pleading.

arrow