(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2019.04.16 2018가단240121

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) 서울남부지방법원 2019.04.16 2018가단240121

건물명도(인도)

Text

1. The defendant shall deliver to the plaintiffs the 3th floor of 145.46 square meters among the real estate listed in the attached list.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

Reasons

1. The plaintiff Gap (the plaintiff Eul is a joint owner of the real estate listed in the separate sheet) and the defendant also does not dispute the fact that the plaintiff Eul is the plaintiffs, and it is deemed that there is no dispute between the parties to the contract.

On March 10, 2016, the following facts are established: (a) lease deposit amounting to KRW 20 million, KRW 1300,000 per month, KRW 1300,000 (payment on the last day of each month), term of lease from April 10, 2016 to April 9, 2018; (b) the lessee’s annual rent falls short of three (3) terms under Article 4 of the instant lease contract; (c) the lessor may terminate the contract; (d) the Defendant paid the rent by up to February 2, 2018, but later paid the rent by up to KRW 1,00,00,000 (hereinafter “instant store”); and (e) it is evident that the Plaintiff’s annual rent falls short of three (3) terms; (e) there is no dispute between the parties concerned; or (e) the purport of the entire pleadings and arguments; and (e) the Plaintiff’s expression of intent to terminate the instant lease on the ground of the rent.

According to the above facts, the instant lease contract was lawfully terminated on August 29, 2018 and terminated.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to deliver the store of this case to the plaintiffs.

In regard to this, the defendant argued to the purport that the delinquency in rent is justified, since the defendant did not properly use the apartment of this case due to the plaintiffs' failure to fulfill the duty to repair the object, and the defendant directly sought repair of the leased object and reimbursement of expenses at his own expense, and the plaintiffs did not pay the rent by refusing to pay the leased object. However, the defendant's assertion is without merit, since no evidence exists to acknowledge

2. The plaintiffs' claims are with merit.

유사 판례

-창원지방법원 진주지원 2018.08.07 2017가단8063

-서울북부지방법원 2015.07.14 2015가단13574

-서울중앙지방법원 2014.11.28 2014가단56100

-서울남부지방법원 2018.07.05 2017가단28010

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.09.06 2018가단5028894