(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2016.01.26 2015가단213042

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) 서울서부지방법원 2016.01.26 2015가단213042

건물명도

Text

1. From 25,00,000 to 25,000 won, the Defendant is also the Plaintiff’s real estate indicated in the separate sheet from September 30, 2014.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On March 19, 2014, the Plaintiff leased the instant real estate to the Defendant (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) by setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 25,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 1,000,000, and the lease period from April 15, 2014 to April 14, 2015 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

B. While the Defendant acquired the instant real estate and used it until the date of the closing of argument, it did not pay as from September 30, 2014.

C. On July 10, 2015, a copy of the complaint of this case stating the Plaintiff’s declaration of intent to terminate the instant lease agreement was served on the Defendant on the ground that the Defendant had failed to pay two or more occasions due to the instant lease agreement.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The defendant asserts that the lawsuit of this case filed by the plaintiff is unlawful since the plaintiff is not the owner of the real estate of this case but the lessee, and the plaintiff is in a position to assume an obligation to deliver the real estate of this case when the auction procedure for the real estate of this case is conducted and sold to a third party.

However, in the lawsuit of performance, standing to sue is a person who asserts that he/she has the right to demand performance, which is a subject matter of lawsuit, and whether or not he/she has the right to demand performance has the right to demand performance is a matter to be proved through the deliberation of the merits (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Da44387, 44394, Oct. 7, 2005). The defendant's defense

3. Judgment on the merits

A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the instant lease agreement was terminated on January 8, 2015 due to the Defendant’s delinquency in rent for at least two years, and barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant real estate to the Plaintiff, barring any special circumstance.

B. Judgment on the Defendant’s assertion 1 is about the Defendant’s objection.

참조판례

-대법원 2005. 10. 7. 선고 2003다44387, 44394 판결

유사 판례

-창원지방법원 2018.07.12 2017나60076

-부산지방법원 2019.07.24 2019나46374

-대법원 2015.06.24 2014다81177

-의정부지방법원고양지원 2014.09.17 2014가합1003

-광주지방법원 2015.01.30 2014나52984