beta
Text
1. If May 24, 2016 arrives on the Plaintiff, the Defendant is the same as one-story of the real estate indicated in the attached Table.
Reasons
1. On November 25, 2014, the Plaintiff operating a public announcement board with the trade name of “C,” 0,000,000 won for monthly rent 3.4 billion won, without a deposit, of Yangcheon-gu Seoul (hereinafter referred to as “the instant room room”) operated by the Plaintiff, on November 25, 2014, agreed to pay in advance and renew monthly rent for the room room room room of this case of this case of this case of this case of which the Plaintiff agreed to pay in advance and renew monthly rent. On September 1, 2015, the Plaintiff was recognized that the Defendant had been unable to pay in advance, and the Plaintiff failed to pay in arrears by February 2, 2016, which was close to the date of closing the argument of this case of this case of this case.
2. Determination
A. The plaintiff asserts the termination of the contract on the ground of the defendant's "in arrear in the admission fee," but the defendant's delinquency in the payment of the admission fee is not acceptable. Therefore, the argument on this part is rejected.
B. However, this case's lease agreement constitutes a case where there is no agreement for the term of lease, and the plaintiff's above assertion includes the assertion that the lease is terminated because there is no agreement for the term of lease as above.
Therefore, the following is considered as follows:
Article 635 (Notice of Termination of Lease without Fixed Period) (1) of the Civil Act provides that "if there is no agreement on the term of lease, a party may notify at any time the lessor of the termination of the contract," and Article 635 (2) 1 of the Civil Act provides that "if the lessor has notified the termination of the building, the notification shall take effect after the lapse of six months from the date on which the other party has received the notification under
In this case, it is apparent that the copy of the complaint was served on the defendant on September 8, 2015, and thus, upon the lapse of March 8, 2016, six months thereafter, this case.