logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원안산지원 2019.02.15 2018가단60963
건물명도(인도)
Text

1. The defendant shall deliver to the plaintiff the building on the top of the ground brickdy roof in Ansan-gu, Jeonsan-si C in Ansan-si.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

Reasons

Basic Facts

A. On June 14, 2004, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant on the lease deposit amounting to KRW 15 million, monthly rent amounting to KRW 100,000,000, and for 12 months from July 20, 2004 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”), and around that time, delivered the instant building to the Defendant.

From that point to that point, the Defendant is operating a mutually authorized brokerage office of “D” in the instant building.

B. Since then, the instant lease contract has been implicitly renewed between the original and the Defendant.

However, around February 3, 2017, the Plaintiff notified the termination of the instant lease agreement, and the said notification reached the Defendant around that time.

[Grounds for recognition] The main text of Article 10(1) of the former Commercial Building Lease Protection Act (amended by Act No. 15791, Oct. 16, 2018) provides that “a lessee shall not refuse a request for renewal of a contract between six months and one month before the expiration of the lease term without justifiable grounds,” and Article 10(2) provides that “a lessee’s right to request renewal of a contract may be exercised only within the extent that the whole lease term, including the initial lease term, does not exceed five years” and Paragraph (4) provides that “where a lessee fails to notify the lessee of the refusal to renew the contract or to notify the lessee of the alteration of the terms and conditions within the period under paragraph (1), the lessee shall be deemed to have renewed the lease under the same conditions as the former lease at the expiration of the lease term. In such cases, the lease term shall be deemed one year.”

According to the above facts, the plaintiff was implicitly renewed the lease contract of this case on February 3, 2017.

arrow