(영문) 대구지방법원 2017.12.22 2017가단13998

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) 대구지방법원 2017.12.22 2017가단13998

건물명도 및 손해배상

Text

1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) deliver the real estate listed in the separate sheet;

(b)payment of 13,100,000 won and c.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On November 11, 2015, the Plaintiff leased the real estate listed in the attached list owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant real estate”) to the Defendant, with the lease deposit of KRW 20 million, KRW 1.3 million per month, the lease term from December 29, 2015 to December 28, 2017 (hereinafter “instant lease contract”), and received the lease deposit from the Defendant around that time.

B. On April 7, 2017, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a content-certified mail stating that the instant lease agreement will be terminated unless the Plaintiff paid 10,1100,000 won in arrears by May 6, 2017. On May 8, 2017, the Plaintiff sent a content-certified mail stating that the instant lease agreement will be terminated on the ground of rent delay.

C. As of the date of the closing of argument, the Defendant has used and profit from the instant real estate, and the rent paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff is KRW 10,30,000,000, and the Defendant unpaid KRW 1,210,500,000,000 imposed on the instant real estate from October 2016 to April 2017.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, each entry in Gap evidence 1 through 7 (including virtual numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Part on the request for extradition

A. On May 8, 2017, the Defendant did not pay two or more rents, and the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a document verifying the termination of the instant lease agreement on the ground that the Plaintiff did not pay two or more rents, and the above content certification reached the Defendant around that time. As such, the instant lease agreement was lawfully terminated, and the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant real estate to the Plaintiff.

B. As to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant asked the Plaintiff to deduct the unpaid rent from the deposit, and the Plaintiff impliedly consented, the instant lease agreement was not terminated, and the Defendant did not have a duty to deliver the instant real estate to the Plaintiff.

Even if the deposit has been paid to the lessor, the lessor is also the lessor.

유사 판례

-대구지방법원서부지원 2017.12.27 2017가단8863

-수원지방법원 2016.01.14 2015가단132412

-청주지방법원제천지원 2019.08.14 2019가단919

-수원지방법원 2018.06.07 2017가단31544

-의정부지방법원 고양지원 2018.02.08 2017가단12854