(영문) 의정부지방법원고양지원 2016.10.28 2016가단12567

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) 의정부지방법원고양지원 2016.10.28 2016가단12567

건물명도

Text

1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) deliver the real estate listed in the separate sheet;

B. From September 1, 2015, the above-mentioned A

subsection (b).

Reasons

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. Comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions of evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4 as well as the purport of the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff: (a) around July 17, 2015, leased real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant officetel”) to the Defendant as KRW 20,000,000, monthly rent, and KRW 1,80,000; (b) around that time, the Plaintiff delivered the instant officetel to the Defendant; (c) the Defendant was found to have delayed delivery of two or more rental fees; and (d) on the other hand, it is clear that the Plaintiff’s duplicate of the instant complaint was served to the Defendant on June 7, 2016, including the Plaintiff’s declaration of intent to terminate the said lease on the grounds of a tea.

Therefore, the lease contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the instant officetel was lawfully terminated on the grounds of the Defendant’s vehicle body on June 7, 2016, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant officetel to the Plaintiff.

B. The Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a lease contract with the monthly rent of KRW 1,800,00 with respect to the instant officetel, and the fact that the said lease contract was terminated on June 7, 2016 is as seen earlier. Meanwhile, the monthly rent of the instant officetel after July 2015 is ratified to be equivalent to KRW 1,80,000, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the rent or unjust enrichment calculated at the rate of KRW 1,80,000 per month from September 1, 2015 to the completion date of delivery of the instant officetel.

2. Determination as to the defendant's assertion

A. The defendant asserts that the lease contract with the plaintiff with the plaintiff with respect to the officetel of this case, such as the cancellation of the lease contract by deception, is due to deception of the plaintiff, and that the lease contract with the defendant and the previous owner can be set up against the plaintiff's request for extradition pursuant to the opposing lease contract concluded between the defendant and the previous owner. However, the lease contract between the plaintiff

유사 판례

-의정부지방법원 2018.11.21 2017가단108813

-의정부지방법원고양지원 2016.08.12 2015가단33185

-대구지방법원경주지원 2016.01.19 2015가단2976

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.07.12 2016가단5016323

-수원지방법원안산지원 2017.06.22 2016가단26983