logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.07.19 2017가단5003881
건물명도(인도)
Text

1. The Defendant is from the Plaintiff’s KRW 970,00,000 to the delivery date of the real estate indicated in the separate sheet from February 28, 2017.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On December 22, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant for the lease deposit amounting to KRW 970 million and for the lease period from February 28, 2015 to February 27, 2017 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

B. The defendant should add to the plaintiff.

It has been paid KRW 970,000,000,000 as the lease deposit stated in the port, and has been transferred and used until now.

C. On November 1, 2016, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant that he/she wishes to renew the instant lease on condition that he/she would receive monthly rent of KRW 800,000,000,000, and that the Defendant would pay the monthly rent to the Plaintiff around December 1, 2016, and that the Plaintiff would pay the monthly rent to the Plaintiff by raising the deposit money. However, the Plaintiff responded to the request for renewal.

6. The defendant expressed his intent to refuse the above renewal request.

On December 12, 2016, the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to renew the instant lease agreement by February 27, 2019 so that the Defendant may reside in the instant real estate, and notified the Plaintiff that the deposit would be paid by raising the market price. On December 14, 2016, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the intention to renew the instant lease agreement on the condition that the Plaintiff would receive the deposit amount of KRW 970 million and the monthly rent of KRW 70 million and KRW 1.25 million, but the Defendant did not respond to any demand.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 6 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts of the determination on the cause of the claim, the instant lease agreement was terminated on February 27, 2017 due to the failure to reach an agreement on the renewal of the instant lease agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.

In addition, the Defendant’s instant case to the Plaintiff.

arrow