(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2017.12.20 2017나25088

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) 서울동부지방법원 2017.12.20 2017나25088

건물명도

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On March 28, 2012, the Plaintiff leased 30 square meters of part (A) in the ship (hereinafter “instant real estate”) connected with each point of the attached Form 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1 among the buildings listed in the attached Table from C, and sub-leaseed the instant real estate to the Defendant on April 1, 2012, by setting the rent of KRW 100,000 per month and the sublease period from April 1, 2012 to April 1, 2014 without a deposit.

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

The instant sub-lease contract was implicitly renewed, and the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the absence of intention to extend the instant sub-lease contract through D around December 2015.

C. The Defendant paid the Plaintiff the amount equivalent to the rent of the electric car until March 31, 2017, and runs ice and petroleum sales business in the instant real estate as of the date of closing the argument in the instant case.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 3, 4, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition, the instant sub-lease contract terminated on April 1, 2016 as the expiration of the period.

Therefore, barring special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant real estate to the Plaintiff and pay unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent of KRW 100,000 per month from April 1, 2017 to the completion date of delivery of the instant real estate.

B. As to this, the Defendant asserted to the effect that the instant sub-lease contract cannot comply with the Plaintiff’s claim for delivery as it was implicitly renewed until April 1, 2018, because it was not notified of the rejection of renewal on or around December 2015. However, as seen earlier, the instant sub-lease contract was terminated due to the Plaintiff’s notification of rejection of renewal to the Defendant via D around December 2015. Furthermore, as alleged by the Defendant, the instant sub-lease contract was implicitly renewed on April 1, 2016 on the grounds that the Defendant was unable to receive the notification of rejection of renewal as alleged by the Defendant.

In this case, this case.

유사 판례

-서울동부지방법원 2017.06.13 2016가단135154

-서울북부지방법원 2017.05.17 2016가단150579

-인천지방법원 2017.09.14 2017나4409

-수원지방법원 2017.03.21 2016가단528256

-수원지방법원성남지원 2014.10.14 2014가단207411