(영문) 대전지방법원 2015.08.27 2015가단13994

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) 대전지방법원 2015.08.27 2015가단13994

건물명도 등

Text

1. The defendant shall receive KRW 1,000,000 from the plaintiff and at the same time, the building indicated in the attached Table shall be the plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On April 1, 2013, the Plaintiff’s agent C entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) that sets forth KRW 1,000,000 as deposit money, and KRW 150,000 as rent monthly (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

However, while entering into the above lease contract, C and the defendant did not enter the contract term in the contract (Evidence A2).

B. On February 3, 2015, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant that the instant lease contract will not be renewed.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence 3, purport of whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. The Plaintiff’s instant lease contract is a lease with no term of contract specified, and its term of contract is two years. Since the said lease contract expired on or around April 30, 2015, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff at the same time with the payment of KRW 1,00,000 from the Plaintiff.

B. The Defendant agreed to the contract term of the instant lease agreement with Defendant C from April 30, 2013 until the removal of the instant building. As such, the instant lease agreement was not yet terminated.

3. Determination

A. 1) The Defendant asserted that the lease term of this case was set between C and C from April 30, 2013 to the date of removal of the building of this case. However, considering the fact that the contract term is not specified in the written contract (Evidence A2) which is a disposal document, it is insufficient to recognize that there was an agreement between B and C as alleged by the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. 2) Ultimately, the lease term of this case is a lease for which the term is not specified, and thus, it is two years in accordance with Article 4(1) of the Housing Lease Protection Act.

B. On April 30, 2015, the instant lease agreement was concluded.

참조조문

-주택임대차보호법 제4조 제1항

유사 판례

-대구지방법원상주지원 2015.10.07 2015가단8093

-의정부지방법원 2013.08.20 2011가단67606

-수원지방법원안산지원 2020.09.23 2020가단63330

-인천지방법원부천지원 2017.10.27 2017가단102640

-서울남부지방법원 2018.12.06 2017가단27147