(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2018.05.29 2017가단125105

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) 서울북부지방법원 2018.05.29 2017가단125105

건물명도(인도)

Text

1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Defendant) indicated the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) on the first floor of the real estate listed in the attached list, which is indicated in the attached Form 1.

Reasons

The main lawsuit and counterclaim are also examined.

1. Basic facts

A. On March 15, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendants, setting the deposit amount of KRW 23,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 1,500,000, and the lease term of KRW 24 months from April 1, 2013.

B. The above lease contract was later renewed at the beginning of one year pursuant to the latter part of Article 10(4) of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act.

C. On April 1, 2017, between the Plaintiff and the Defendants, security deposit of 23,00,000, monthly rent of 1,650,000, lease term of 1,650,000, from April 1, 2017 to March 31, 2018; “a plan to reconstruct the instant real estate after one year” in paragraph (6) of the special agreement; “a plan to reconstruct the instant real estate after one year” in paragraph (7) of the said special agreement; and “a new building” in paragraph (7) of the said special agreement, the lessor will compensate the lessee for the premium and facility investment cost when the lessee

hereinafter referred to as the "instant special agreement"

.The lease contract (Criteria for the lease contract in possession of the defendant) entered into as "."

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. On the ground that the Plaintiff’s judgment on the Plaintiff’s claim for principal lawsuit expired on March 31, 2018, the Plaintiff sought to deliver the instant real estate to the Defendants, the Defendants did not dispute that the lease contract was terminated by the Do with the lease term. Therefore, the Defendants are obliged to deliver the instant real estate to the Plaintiff.

(A) The plaintiff's conjunctive claim is no longer examined. 3. Determination as to the defendants' counterclaims

A. The Defendants, based on the instant special agreement, seek against the Plaintiff the payment of KRW 84,601,000 for premium paid to the Plaintiff (=30,000,000 for premium paid to the Plaintiff who transferred the instant real estate to be remodeled in line with the purpose of real estate business) and damages for delay.

B. Determination is examined, i.e., this.

참조조문

-상가건물 임대차보호법 제10조 제4항

유사 판례

-대구지방법원 서부지원 2018.06.20 2017가단60250

-인천지방법원 2019.10.25 2018가단248434

-서울남부지방법원 2017.10.18 2017가단222133

-대전지방법원 2015.10.21 2014가합8381

-수원지방법원여주지원 2019.08.08 2018가단6336