logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 평택지원 2018.12.13 2018가단61954
건물명도(인도)
Text

1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

A. From among the land buildings of Pyeongtaek-si C, the light-weight steel-frame-frame-frame prefabricated Group, one-story warehouse is a single-story warehouse.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On March 30, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant on a deposit of KRW 5 million, KRW 350,000 (payment on April 15, 2016), and the lease period of KRW 24 months from April 15, 2016, on a deposit of KRW 179.53 square meters at a single-story store in light of the lightweight steel-frame structure among the buildings on the land of Pyeongtaek-si C (hereinafter “instant warehouse”).

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). B.

The Defendant paid only KRW 3,735,00,000 among the rent of KRW 10,150,000 until September 14, 2018, and delayed payment of KRW 6,415,00,00. The Defendant did not pay the electricity fee of KRW 270,060.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence No. 2-1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above findings of determination, the lease contract of this case is deemed to have been lawfully terminated on October 8, 2018, when the duplicate of the complaint of this case, stating a declaration of intention to claim termination on the ground of delinquency in rent, was delivered to the Defendant. Thus, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the warehouse of this case to the Plaintiff, and pay to the Plaintiff the amount calculated by the ratio of KRW 350,000 per month from September 14, 2018, the sum of overdue rent and electricity charges (= KRW 6,685,00,000, KRW 6,415,000, KRW 270,060, deducted by five million, and KRW 1,685,060,000, and from September 15, 2018, from September 15, 2018 to the date of delivery of the building of this case or the date of loss of the Plaintiff’s ownership on the building.

The defendant asserts to the effect that D is a substantial operator of the defendant who is a stock company, and that E is not responsible for E because it is currently lent only the name of the representative director. However, the defendant of this case is obvious that E is not E, and the above argument is not a legitimate defense.

3. citing the Plaintiff’s claim for conclusion

arrow