logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원부천지원 2015.11.03 2015가단13265
건물명도등
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On March 18, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with C on the lease deposit amount of KRW 50 million on the ship (hereinafter “instant real estate”) that connects each point of Annex 1, 2, 3, 4, 1, and 5, 6, 7, 7, and 50 square meters in sequence with each point of Annex 1, 1, 2, 3, 4, 1, 1, 1, 5, 5, 5, 500 square meters in sequence with each point of Annex 1, 3, 400,000 won in the rent month

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). At the time, C entered its own name and the Defendant’s corporate name and the Defendant’s corporate registration number in the lessee column of the said lease agreement.

B. At present, the real estate in this case is in possession and use by the organizations, such as D and Ebu branch offices, and the defendant does not occupy the real estate in this case.

C. C does not pay to the Plaintiff KRW 4.5 million among the security deposit under the instant lease agreement and the rent after September 17, 2014.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 and 2, and the purport of Gap evidence 3-1 through 4-4, as a whole, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that since the instant lease agreement was concluded in the name of the Defendant, the Defendant did not pay two or more rents, and thus, the Plaintiff terminated the instant lease agreement, and filed a claim against the Defendant for the delivery of the instant real estate and the payment of the unpaid rents.

3. Determination

A. First, in light of the purport of the entire pleadings as to whether the instant lease agreement effect against the Defendant, the following facts are considered: (a) although the Defendant was deemed to have appointed C as the head of the subsidiary branch of the Defendant-affiliated branch on September 12, 2013, there is no evidence to support the fact that the Defendant granted C the power of representation regarding the instant lease agreement; and (b) the said subsidiary branch is an unincorporated association with the capacity of independent rights.

arrow