(영문) 춘천지방법원속초지원 2017.09.19 2017가단119

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) 춘천지방법원속초지원 2017.09.19 2017가단119

건물명도(인도)

Text

1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

A. Of the ground floors of the real estate listed in the separate sheet, each of the indication 1, 2, 3, 4, 1 of the annexed sheet.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On October 13, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with the Defendant, setting the deposit amount of KRW 20,00,000,000 for general restaurants in the attached Form No. 216.50 square meters (hereinafter “instant building”) among the branch floors of real estate listed in the attached Table, and setting the lease agreement between October 13, 2015 and January 12, 2016 for the period from October 13, 2015 to January 12, 2016. Around that time, the Plaintiff transferred the instant building to the Defendant.

On the other hand, Article 4 of the instant lease agreement provides that "the lessor may immediately terminate this contract when the lessee fails to pay the rent on at least two occasions."

B. The instant lease agreement was renewed once, and the Defendant did not pay rent from February 13, 2016.

C. On the first day for pleading of the instant case, the Plaintiff expressed his intent to terminate the instant lease agreement to the Defendant on the ground of the Defendant’s delinquency in rent.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts of the above recognition, the instant lease agreement was terminated due to the termination of the Plaintiff’s termination due to the Defendant’s delinquency in rent, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff, and to pay the Plaintiff the rent or unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent, calculated at the rate of KRW 1,540,000 per month from February 13, 2016 to the completion date of delivery of the instant building.

As to this, the defendant argued to the effect that the plaintiff could not accept the plaintiff's request because there was an agreement between the plaintiff and the plaintiff that the plaintiff would not request the delivery of the building of this case until the sub-lease of the building of this case. However, since there is no evidence to deem that there was such an agreement,

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원안양지원 2019.08.29 2019가단1808

-수원지방법원 평택지원 2018.12.04 2018가단60784

-서울북부지방법원 2017.05.30 2016가단43572

-대구지방법원김천지원 2019.08.22 2018가단35895

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.08.23 2016가단39109