(영문) 인천지방법원부천지원 2015.11.19 2015가단19034

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) 인천지방법원부천지원 2015.11.19 2015가단19034

건물명도등

Text

1. The defendant shall deliver to the plaintiff the real estate stated in the attached list.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

3...

Reasons

1.The following facts may be acknowledged, either in dispute between the parties or in the entry in Gap evidence 1 to 3 (including each number), by integrating the purpose of the entire pleadings:

Around June 30, 2014, the Plaintiff subleaseed the real estate (hereinafter referred to as “instant real estate”) as indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as “instant real estate”) leased by the Plaintiff from the Defendant, the owner, to July 6, 2015 during the sublease period from July 7, 2014 to July 6, 2015.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant sublease contract”). (b)

The Plaintiff’s sub-lease contract of this case to the Defendant around June 5, 2015

7.6. As the period expires, the Defendant sent a content-certified mail notifying the delivery of the instant real estate, and received it around that time.

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the sub-lease contract of this case has already been terminated on July 6, 2015, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant real estate to the Plaintiff, barring special circumstances.

B. As to the judgment of the defendant's defense, the defendant asserts that since the plaintiff agreed to extend the period to the defendant through the adjustment of the monthly rent each year at the time of concluding the sub-lease contract, the plaintiff's claim seeking to deliver the real estate of this case shall not be permitted as contrary to the principle of good faith or the principle of the speech, on the ground that the sub-lease period stipulated in the contract has expired.

However, there is no evidence to prove that there was an agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant on the extension of the period as claimed by the defendant, so the defendant's above defense is without merit.

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

유사 판례

-창원지방법원 2015.11.17 2015나919

-서울동부지방법원 2016.12.09 2016가단124604

-서울동부지방법원 2017.12.20 2017나25088

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.08.11 2014가단223399

-부산지방법원 2015.10.15 2014가단88914