logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 통영지원 2018.01.18 2017가단24358
건물명도(인도)
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

Basic Facts

On June 15, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with the Defendant with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant store”).

Lease deposit: The lease period of KRW 500,000 per month (the 15th day of each month in advance): the special agreement from June 15, 2012 to June 14, 2017: (1) If a lessee wishes, the additional period may be extended for at least five years.

(2) Other matters shall be governed by the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act and custom.

(3) Management expenses and other

6. 15. Succession by the lessee thereafter.

The relocation shall be borne by the lessor.

(4) The non-exclusive contract deposit for business shall be refunded during the period of return, and the down payment shall be waived until the remainder is paid.

On March 2017, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to order the instant store upon the expiration of the term of the instant lease agreement, and the Defendant sent an answer to the effect that the period of the instant lease agreement is extended to five years on or around March 17, 2017, based on Paragraph (1) of the instant lease agreement.

【Ground of recognition】 The lease agreement of this case was terminated on June 14, 2017 by the Plaintiff’s assertion of the entire purport of the pleading, including the fact that there is no dispute, Gap’s 1-5 evidence, Eul’s 1-2 evidence, and Eul’s 1-2 evidence (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply).

Paragraph 1 of the special agreement is only the meaning that the right of priority for the lease contract is granted, not the right of renewal.

There is no provision concerning the lease deposit, rent, etc., which is important contents of the lease contract after renewal, so the right to renew cannot be deemed to have been granted to the defendant.

In addition, the defendant did not comply with the monthly rent payment date (prepaid on the 15th day of each month), and paid 333 million won out of the total rent of 333 million won for five years.

From the first payment date of the rent to June 30, 2013, value-added tax of KRW 50,000 was omitted and paid only KRW 500,000.

March 4, 2015

arrow