logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.02.12 2015가단5294874
건물인도 청구의 소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On May 7, 2012, the Defendant entered into a contract with the Plaintiff and the Seoul Jung-gu Seoul Central District Court for the entrustment of operation (hereinafter referred to as the “instant operating contract”) with respect to the Fluice Center of the Bluxor apartment (hereinafter referred to as the “instant Fluor Center”) at 90-gil 74,00,00,00, 70,000, in Seoul Central District, with the term of the contract from May 7, 2012 to May 6, 2015, and operated the instant Fluorg Center.

B. Article 2 of the Operating Agreement provides that “The equipment and the interior necessary for the operation of the instant insignia center shall be installed and operated by the Defendant.” Article 4 provides that “The Defendant shall submit the surety insurance policy of KRW 70 million with the deposit to the Plaintiff within 30 days from the contract date, and if it is violated, it may be at a disadvantage to the Defendant, such as termination of the contract,” and Article 8(1) provides that “The Plaintiff may terminate the instant operating contract when the monthly reserve and management expenses of the Defendant are accumulated for more than 3 months.”

C. Article 10(1) of the above contract states, “If the defendant wishes to renew the contract three months prior to the expiration of the contract, the plaintiff may permit the renewal of the contract to the defendant if more than half of the user members agree to the renewal contract.” Article 10(2) states, “The plaintiff shall consult with the plaintiff about the renewal of the contract three months prior to the expiration date of the contract, and the renewal shall be deemed to have been made at the time of the request for consultation on the renewal of the contract.”

On February 26, 2015, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant that he would not renew the contract. However, even after May 6, 2015, the Defendant occupied and operated the instant insignia center.

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

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. On May 6, 2015, the date when the contract expires pursuant to Article 10(2) of the Plaintiff’s one operating contract.

arrow