(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2017.12.01 2017가단12777

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) 서울동부지방법원 2017.12.01 2017가단12777

건물명도(인도) 등

Text

1. The defendant received KRW 150,000 from the plaintiffs, and the Seoul Housing Corporation received KRW 45,000 from the plaintiffs.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On February 13, 2015, the Plaintiffs entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant and the Seoul Housing and Urban Corporation (Gu Es. Es., hereinafter “S. Corporation”) to lease KRW 150 million (the Defendant’s share of KRW 1.5 million, KRW 45 million, and KRW 45 million) with respect to the lease deposit for the second floor of KRW 76.52 square meters (hereinafter “instant housing”) out of the buildings listed in the separate sheet owned by the Plaintiffs, as indicated in the separate sheet owned by the Plaintiffs (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). From March 30, 2015 to March 29, 2017 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

B. On December 22, 2016, the Plaintiffs received notification from the Non-Party Corporation that the instant lease agreement should be terminated at the end of the contract term due to the Non-Party Corporation’s failure to submit explanatory materials as to excess of the income standard for the long-term core housing business, housing ownership, excess of asset standard, etc., and other reasons. On February 28, 2017, the Defendant agreed to deliver the instant housing to the Plaintiffs at the request of the Plaintiffs.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The plaintiffs' assertion is obligated to deliver the housing of this case to the plaintiffs upon the termination of the instant lease agreement.

B. According to the above facts, the instant lease agreement was lawfully terminated on March 29, 2017 as the agreement between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant’s refusal to renew the contract was reached.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to deliver the house of this case to the plaintiffs by reinstatement.

The defendant asserts that the defendant and the non-party Corporation cannot deliver the building of this case to the plaintiffs until they receive a refund of deposit for lease from the plaintiffs.

Upon the termination of the instant lease agreement, the Plaintiffs are the Defendant and Nonparty.

유사 판례

-대전지방법원서산지원 2020.06.16 2019가단5088

-서울서부지방법원 2019.11.13 2018가단241123

-부산지방법원 2014.12.04 2014가단14326

-서울동부지방법원 2017.11.30 2017가합105973

-수원지방법원 2017.01.26 2016가단526939