logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.06.02 2014가합53832
건물명도 등
Text

1. Defendant A:

A. To deliver the real estate listed in the attached real estate list to the plaintiffs;

B. Plaintiffs 1 through 18, 20.

Reasons

1. Claim against the defendant A;

A. The facts of recognition 1) The commercial building in question is divided into 137 stores and registered separately, and the plaintiffs are registered as sectional owners with respect to each of the corresponding units as described in attached Table 2. 2) The C management body entrusted with the right to lease of the commercial building in this case (hereinafter referred to as the "management body") on June 8, 2007 between the defendant A and the defendant on June 8, 2007, stating that "the management body shall lease the commercial building in this case to the defendant A with the term "a deposit: 1.5 million won, monthly rent: 8,000 won (including additional tax); 36 months from the delivery date of the commercial building in this case; hereinafter referred to as "the lease contract in this case").

Defendant A used the instant commercial building to Defendant B, who is a punishment father, and Defendant B removed the boundary mark of the floor of the instant commercial building and building number signs, etc., and Defendant B remodeled the instant commercial building without permission by using the partitions, door door, etc., regardless of the boundary line of the sectioned store.

3. On September 9, 2010, Defendant A notified the management body of the termination of the instant lease agreement and the provisional injunction against the transfer of real estate possession to the effect that “The instant lease agreement will be terminated without renewal on October 2010, which is the end of the instant lease agreement,” and the management body respondeded on September 15, 2010 to Defendant A that “the instant lease agreement will be terminated as of October 31, 2010 as requested by Defendant A.”

Nevertheless, Defendant B continued possession and use of and benefit from the commercial building of this case, etc., and the Plaintiff is the Seoul Central District Court against the Defendants and the sub-lessees.

arrow