logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원해남지원 2015.08.13 2015가단462
건물인도
Text

1. The defendant shall indicate to the plaintiff (appointed party) and the appointed party the annexed drawing among the first floor of the building indicated in the annexed list.

Reasons

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. 1) The Defendant’s real estate stated in the order C on January 4, 2010 (hereinafter “instant store”)

35,000,000 Won for lease deposit, monthly 400,000 for rent, and thereafter 500,000 won for lease deposit.

(2) On February 26, 2013, the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the designated parties (hereinafter “Plaintiff, etc.”) decided and leased as the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the designated parties (hereinafter “Plaintiff, etc.”) purchased the entire building and its site indicated in the separate sheet, including the instant store, 1/3 shares, and completed the registration of transfer of each share ownership on March 6, 2013.

(A) The Plaintiff, etc. asserted that the lease contract was terminated first after acquiring the ownership of the instant store, but thereafter, agreed to renew the lease contract with the Defendant by January 3, 2015 (the Plaintiff, etc.) by January 23, 2014). (4) The Plaintiff, etc. demanded that the Defendant deliver the instant store on October 23, 2014, “after the expiration of the lease contract period, the Plaintiff, etc. did not intend to renew the lease contract after January 3, 2015.”

(A) Evidence Nos. 3-3 / [Grounds for Recognition] A 1-2, Gap evidence No. 2, Gap evidence No. 3-1, 2, and 3-3, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

B. According to the facts acknowledged earlier, the lease contract on the instant store was terminated on January 3, 2015.

The defendant is obligated to deliver the instant store to the plaintiff, etc. who succeeded to the lessor's status, barring special circumstances, such as the right to possess the instant store.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff could not deliver the instant store before the deposit for lease was returned from the Plaintiff, etc., and thus, the Defendant paid KRW 35,000,000 to the previous lessor upon renting the instant store.

arrow