logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.01.18 2015가단122929
건물명도
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. In fact, on June 14, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant on the building specified in the Disposition No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as “instant building”) with a deposit amounting to KRW 250 million and the term of lease up to July 13, 2014; however, on July 13, 2014, the term of lease extended by July 13, 2015.

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). 【No dispute exists, entry of Gap 1 and 3 evidence, and the purport of the whole pleadings.”

2. Judgment on the parties’ assertion

A. On June 16, 2015, the Plaintiff asserted that: (a) the Defendant delivered the instant building by July 13, 2015, with D, the Plaintiff’s mother and representative, and the Plaintiff’s agent, by July 13, 2015; and (b) the account number was known to receive a refund of deposit for lease; (c) thus, the instant lease agreement was terminated on July 13, 2015; and (d) the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff.

As to this, the Defendant did not notify the Plaintiff of the rejection of renewal during the period from six months to one month before the expiration of the period, and thus, the instant lease contract was implicitly renewed for two years from July 14, 2015.

B. According to the above findings of determination, in the instant case where the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the refusal of renewal, etc. during the period from six months to one month before the expiration of the term, and there is no proof, the instant lease agreement was implicitly renewed for two years from July 14, 2015, except in extenuating circumstances.

(Article 6(1) and (2) of the Housing Lease Protection Act. As to whether the Defendant agreed on June 16, 2015 to terminate the instant lease agreement with D on July 13, 2015, the health care unit, D’s finding on June 16, 2015, and the Defendant informed D of the account number, there is no dispute between the parties.

However, on June 16, 2015, the defendant's house occurs.

arrow