logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.09.22 2014가단5258758
건물명도
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 February 6, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with the Defendant, setting the deposit amount of KRW 50 million, KRW 1.5 million per month, and the lease period from February 16, 2014 to February 15, 2015.

B. The Plaintiff, without a deposit, prepared a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant agreement”) with the Defendant on the terms that the instant real estate was leased to the Defendant by setting the lease period from March 16, 2014 to March 15, 2015, without a deposit amount of KRW 3 million (Additional dues), monthly general management expenses of KRW 472,50, and the lease period of KRW 472,50, and from March 16, 2014 to March 15, 2015, the Plaintiff was hindered from the Defendant on March 13, 2014, and C was a witness.

C. On August 6, 2014, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a certificate of content that the lease contract was terminated on the ground that the Defendant had not paid monthly rent once pursuant to the instant contract.

[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 to 3, Evidence No. 1 to 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. On the premise that the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a lease contract under the instant lease contract, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant did not pay a monthly rent for at least three years, and that the Plaintiff’s declaration of intent to terminate the said lease contract to the Defendant was reached, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant real estate to the Plaintiff, and to pay KRW 3,772,50 in total the monthly rent and general management expenses until the completion date of delivery of the said real estate.

(b) insofar as the authenticity of the judgment document is recognized, the court shall recognize the existence and content of the declaration of intent in accordance with the content of the document unless there is any reflective proof, and shall not reject it without reasonable explanation, but even if it is a disposition document attested to be genuine, there is a reflective proof or written in that document.

arrow