(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2015.11.24 2015가단41330

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 2015.11.24 2015가단41330

건물인도

Text

1. The defendant shall receive KRW 80,000,000 from the plaintiff, and at the same time, shall be the building stated in the attached Table to the plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On June 18, 2011, C leased a building listed in the attached list (Seoul Geumcheon-gu Down 1.16, Dong 116, hereinafter “instant real estate”) to the Defendant by setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 80,000,00, and the lease period from July 30, 2011 to July 30, 2013.

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). B.

After the conclusion of the instant lease agreement, the Defendant paid the above rental deposit to C, and occupied and used the instant real estate; and C and the Defendant agreed to extend the instant lease agreement to two years on June 1, 2013.

(Lease Period until July 30, 2015). (C)

The Plaintiff purchased the instant real estate from C on April 25, 2014, and completed the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the Plaintiff on April 28, 2014. Around that time, the Plaintiff agreed with the Defendant to succeed to the status of C, a lessor.

On June 1, 2015 and June 15, 2015, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant the intent to refuse the renewal of the instant lease agreement by content-certified mail.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 1, 2, and 3, and the purport of the whole pleading

2. According to the allegations and the above findings, the Plaintiff’s declaration of refusal to renew the instant lease agreement was sent to the Defendant by content-certified mail on June 1, 2015 and June 15, 2015, and each of the above mail was returned. Therefore, each of the above content-certified mail is presumed to have reached the Defendant around that time (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Da20052, Oct. 27, 200). Therefore, it is determined that the instant lease agreement was lawfully terminated on or around July 30, 2015, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant real estate to the Plaintiff at the same time as the Plaintiff paid KRW 80,000,000 from the deposit deposit to the Plaintiff.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

참조판례

-대법원 2000. 10. 27. 선고 2000다20052 판결

유사 판례

-서울남부지방법원 2015.12.22 2015가단222641

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.06.13 2016가단5211333

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.08.12 2014가단5320332

-의정부지방법원 고양지원 2018.03.22 2017가단17965

-서울남부지방법원 2015.02.09 2014가단53527