(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.06.30 2014가단230489

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.06.30 2014가단230489

건물명도등

Text

1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a)in addition, among the real estate listed in the separate sheet, the specifications (a), (b), (c), (d) and (a) of the attached list;

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. Of the buildings listed in the attached list in the Seoul Building, the portion of 9.32 square meters inside the ship (a) and 9.32 square meters (hereinafter “instant store”) connected each point of (a), (b), (c), (d), and (a) among the buildings listed in the attached list in the attached list in the Seoul Building, are partitioned by D through the registration of shares 9.32/149, which are the relevant shares, in consultation with other co-ownership holders. The Plaintiff purchased the above part (a) from D and completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the said co-ownership on April 27, 2010.

B. On November 1, 2009, D leased the instant store to the Defendant at KRW 5,00,000, monthly rent of KRW 450,000, and the lease period of KRW 12 months from the contract date. On April 26, 2010, the Plaintiff succeeded to the lessor’s status under the lease agreement for the instant store.

C. The instant lease contract with the instant store was implicitly renewed every one year, and the Defendant, from around 12, 2013 to around 10,000, paid the monthly rent for the instant store by changing it to KRW 1,050,000 according to the agreement with the Plaintiff.

On July 3, 2014, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant that the lease contract for the instant store was terminated on November 1, 2014, and no longer intends to renew it. On July 7, 2014, the Defendant received the content-certified mail.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry in Gap evidence 1 to 5 (including paper numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. According to the facts of the above recognition of the duty to deliver a store and return unjust enrichment, the lease contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant for the instant store is terminated on November 1, 2014 as the Plaintiff expressed his/her intention to refuse to renew the lease contract. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant delivers the instant store to the Plaintiff, and the Defendant is the monthly rent from November 2, 2014 to the completion date of the delivery of the instant store.

유사 판례

-청주지방법원 2015.07.08 2015가단3921

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.08.20 2015가단5055239

-제주지방법원 2015.05.12 2015가단50032

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.12.08 2015가단5228488

-광주지방법원해남지원 2015.12.22 2015가단3072