(영문) 울산지방법원 2015.04.22 2014가단16165

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) 울산지방법원 2015.04.22 2014가단16165

건물명도 등

Text

1. The defendant shall deliver to the plaintiff the building indicated in the attached list.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

3...

Reasons

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The parties’ assertion asserts that, even if the Plaintiff merely leased the instant building to C as the owner of the building listed in the attached list (hereinafter “the instant building”), and did not lease it to the Defendant, and that the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a lease agreement on the instant building, the Defendant did not pay the lease deposit or rent to the Plaintiff, and thus, the Defendant was obligated to deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff.

On April 1, 2013, the Defendant concluded a lease contract with C, the lease deposit of KRW 20 million, and KRW 3 million, which was delegated by the Plaintiff with the right to lease the building of this case on April 1, 2013. The Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

B. We examine the judgment, and there is no evidence to prove that C concluded a lease contract with the Defendant upon delegation of the right to lease the instant building by the Plaintiff, and since the Defendant is the person who occupies the instant building, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff. Even if the Defendant’s assertion was recognized as a lease contract, the Defendant paid approximately KRW 20 million among them to the Plaintiff by September 2013 while operating the restaurant in the instant building until September 2013.

Therefore, even if considering the above KRW 20 million of the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant failed to pay the Plaintiff the rent under the Defendant’s claim’s lease agreement after November 2013. Thus, the Plaintiff may terminate the said lease agreement on the grounds of this, on the grounds that the said agreement was not paid to the Plaintiff.

As it is apparent that the complaint containing the plaintiff's expression of intent to terminate the above lease contract was served on the defendant, the defendant is obligated to deliver the building of this case to the plaintiff.

2...

유사 판례

-광주지방법원목포지원 2020.04.01 2019가단4371

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.11.09 2020가단5132918

-대전지방법원 논산지원 2018.12.13 2018가단2021

-수원지방법원 2017.01.11 2016가단42813

-대전지방법원 논산지원 2018.06.07 2018가단63