logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.05.25 2015가합23074
건물명도
Text

1. The Defendants shall be paid KRW 405,746,00 from the Plaintiff, and shall be jointly recorded in the attached list to the Plaintiff.

Reasons

Facts of recognition

On May 10, 200, the Plaintiff concluded a lease agreement with F and Defendant B, D, C, and real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant building”) with a deposit of KRW 400,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 13,200,000, and the lease period of KRW 12 months from June 10, 200 to December 12, 200, and subsequently renewed the lease agreement after changing the rent and the lease period on September 1, 2007 (from September 1, 2007, Defendant E was included in the lessee). On August 28, 2012, the Plaintiff concluded a lease agreement with a fixed period of KRW 3,00,000,000 (including the lease period of KRW 13,00,00,000).

The Plaintiff, F, Defendant B, D, and C had been operating a safe guard in the building of this case from August 2000 to the same business, and thereafter, Defendant E participated in the same business, and the Plaintiff and F withdraw from the same business relationship, and the Defendants operated a safe guard in the building of this case until now.

On October 6, 2015, the Plaintiff pointed out that the Defendants had to deliver the instant building to the Defendants until January 2015, but still continued to use the said building. As such, the Plaintiff sent a written notification to deliver the instant building to the Defendants by November 2015, and the said written notification reached the Defendants around October 7, 2015.

[Grounds for recognition] Fact-finding, Gap evidence Nos. 4 through 10, and 12, and the overall purport of the pleadings as to the grounds for a claim for a decision on the request for the delivery of a building. According to the above fact-finding, since the lease contract of this case was implicitly renewed from January 10, 2014, the parties can be notified of termination of the contract at any time pursuant to Article 635 of the Civil Act. Since the plaintiff notified termination of the contract as seen earlier, the lease contract of this case was lawfully terminated as of April 8, 2016, which was served on the defendants, from October 7, 2015 to April 8, 2016.

The Plaintiff and the Defendants on January 2015.

arrow