(영문) 의정부지방법원 2015.10.28 2014가합10202

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) 의정부지방법원 2015.10.28 2014가합10202

건물명도

Text

1. The defendant shall receive KRW 231,901,00 from the plaintiff and at the same time, each real estate listed in the attached list is stated in the plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On June 23, 2009, the Defendant leased each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) from the Plaintiff as lease deposit KRW 30,000,000, monthly rent KRW 5,000,000 (payment on June 20, 200), and from June 20, 2009 to June 19, 2014, for the purpose of running a stone business.

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). B.

Before the conclusion of the instant lease agreement, the Plaintiff provided the Defendant with a lease agreement (Article 8 [Recovery] stating that “the Defendant shall not restore the building to its original state in its name.” The Defendant violated the number of lease agreements (Article 1-1, No. 1, No. 1, No. 2000). The Defendant stated that “the Defendant shall transfer this building to the Plaintiff, provided that the Defendant shall transfer this building facilities to the Plaintiff, and, if necessary, the Defendant who acquired the building upon mutual agreement between the Plaintiff, provided that “the machinery shall make the Defendant’s hand over it.” Accordingly, the instant lease agreement was concluded in accordance with the above wording that the Defendant would pay the hand over, and accordingly, was not used for any other purpose.” Article 9 of the instant lease agreement provides that “The Defendant shall not use the building as a factory (or a harsh store) and Article 10 provides that “The Plaintiff may terminate the contract if the Defendant violated the preceding paragraph, the Defendant may not alter the form of building or operation without obtaining the Plaintiff’s consent.”

C. On December 16, 2013, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant that he/she had no intent to renew the instant lease agreement.

On June 26, 2014, the Plaintiff had the obligation to order the Defendant to restore the building to its original state on June 19, 2014, which is the expiration date of the lease term, according to the terms and conditions of the instant lease agreement, but did not implement it.

Pursuant to the terms of the instant lease agreement, the Defendant is obligated to repair the building.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.11.12 2015가합525655

-서울서부지방법원 2019.12.18 2019가단208406

-수원지방법원 2019.04.03 2017가합15020

-부산지방법원 2015.08.12 2015가단27305

-서울북부지방법원 2014.07.11 2013나6009