(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.01.12 2015가단5172943

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.01.12 2015가단5172943

건물명도

Text

1. The Defendant receives KRW 2,00,000 from the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and simultaneously receives KRW 2,00,000 from the Plaintiff (Appointed Party).

Reasons

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. On April 1, 2006, the Plaintiff (Appointed Party; hereinafter “Plaintiff”) entered into a lease agreement between the Defendant and the Plaintiff, setting the deposit amount of KRW 2 million, monthly rent of KRW 300,000,000, and the lease period of KRW 12 months (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

(2) Since then, the instant lease agreement was explicitly renewed between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on a one-year basis. On May 28, 2015, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to deliver the instant real estate on the grounds of the refusal to renew the instant lease agreement and the reconstruction of the C building to which the instant real estate belongs.

(3) The Defendant asserts that even after March 31, 2016, the status of the Defendant’s lessee of the instant real estate continues to be maintained.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence 4, the purport of whole pleadings

B. According to the facts of the above recognition, the instant lease contract is terminated on March 31, 2016. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant real estate to the Plaintiff, a lessor of the instant lease, at the same time, by March 31, 2016, as requested by the Plaintiff, at the same time receiving KRW 2 million from the Plaintiff, as well as to deliver the instant real estate to the Plaintiff, who is the lessor of the instant lease contract, by March 31, 2016, and as long as

2. The defendant's assertion argues that since the defendant agreed that the plaintiff guaranteed the lease term of the instant lease agreement until the removal of the instant real estate, the defendant cannot comply with the plaintiff's claim of this case.

However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the agreement was concluded between the plaintiff and the defendant as alleged by the defendant, and the defendant's assertion based on such premise is without merit.

3. If so, the plaintiff .

유사 판례

-서울남부지방법원 2018.05.18 2017가단249817

-광주지방법원 2015.11.19 2015가단4035

-부산지방법원 2016.09.06 2015가단240382

-창원지방법원마산지원 2015.02.11 2014가단11041

-의정부지방법원 2014.12.09 2014가단39756