(영문) 대전지방법원서산지원 2015.01.16 2014가단52027

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) 대전지방법원서산지원 2015.01.16 2014가단52027

토지

Text

1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

A. Of the land listed in the separate sheet No. 1, each point is indicated in the annexed sheet No. 62, 63, 64, 65, and 62.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of each land indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each land of this case”).

B. The Defendant is the owner of each house, warehouse, or vinyl stated in the purport of the claim (hereinafter “instant building”).

C. Around May 2009, the Plaintiff leased each of the instant lands to the Defendant by setting up two white-seas ( approximately KRW 450,000) as the annual rent to the Defendant, and the Defendant occupied and used each of the instant lands.

However, on December 22, 2009, the Defendant paid only KRW 242,400 which is far less than the market price at the time of half of the half of the half of the half of the Republic of Korea. On November 19, 2011, only KRW 150,000 was paid on or around November 19, 201, and only KRW 100,000 was paid on or around March 19, 2012, and thereafter did not pay the remainder at all.

E. On November 26, 2013, the Plaintiff sent a content-certified mail to the effect that the Defendant’s delayed payment of the rent would terminate the said lease contract. At that time, the said mail reached the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including paper numbers) and the purport of the whole pleading

2. According to the above facts of recognition, the above lease contract was lawfully rescinded by the Plaintiff on the grounds of the Defendant’s delayed delay, barring any special circumstances.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to remove the building, etc. of this case to the plaintiff as reinstatement and deliver each land of this case to the plaintiff.

I would like to say.

In regard to this, the defendant argued that the defendant did not pay the difference because he agreed to deduct the cemetery management expenses from the rent, and that the defendant did not pay the difference. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the defendant agreed to manage the plaintiff's cemetery and deduct the cemetery management expenses from the rent. Thus, the above argument by the defendant is without merit.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified.

유사 판례

-전주지방법원 2020.02.14 2018나13434

-수원지방법원 2018.09.07 2018가합10824

-청주지방법원 2015.01.15 2014나5181

-춘천지방법원 2017.10.17 2016가단55045

-수원지방법원 성남지원 2018.12.11 2018가단225158