(영문) 부산지방법원 2018.02.07 2017나54135

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) 부산지방법원 2018.02.07 2017나54135

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 May 5, 2014, D agreed between the Defendant and the Defendant that “A lessee may remodel or alter the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant store”) to the Defendant at the lessee’s expense prior to the date of return of the real estate (hereinafter “instant lease”) with the lease deposit of KRW 1,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 100,000 (payment on May 5, 200), and the lease term of KRW 36 months for the lease contract (hereinafter “instant lease”).

B. After the death of a lessor D, the heir of the deceased D (hereinafter “the deceased”) completed the registration of transfer of shares on March 11, 2016 on the building in which the instant store was located on the ground of inheritance on November 24, 2015.

C. On April 21, 2016, the Plaintiffs agreed to purchase the said building and succeed to the lessor’s status of the instant lease agreement. The Defendant, a lessee, consented to the said succession, and the Plaintiffs completed the registration of ownership transfer as to each 1/2 co-ownership share of the said building on May 4, 2016.

After entering into the instant lease agreement, the Defendant operated multiple businesses without registering as a business operator at the instant store, and without paying the Plaintiffs a rent after September 2016, the Defendant occupied, used, and used the instant store until now.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 4, Gap evidence 7-1 and 2, Gap evidence 8, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. According to the facts of the recognition of the above request for extradition, the fact that the Defendant was in arrears for at least three years after September 2016 is acknowledged, and the fact that the duplicate of the complaint of this case, on January 23, 2017, stating the Plaintiffs’ intent to terminate the instant lease agreement on the grounds of the Defendant’s delinquency in rent, is evident that the duplicate of the complaint of this case was served on the Defendant.

Ultimately, the instant lease agreement is concluded.

유사 판례

-인천지방법원 2016.02.18 2015가단45498

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.07.23 2019가단5066442

-부산지방법원 2017.08.29 2016가단30674

-춘천지방법원강릉지원 2017.11.07 2016나50778

-울산지방법원 2017.06.14 2016가합22260