logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 성남지원 2018.07.18 2017가단220897
건물명도(인도)
Text

1. The defendant is paid KRW 90,000,000 from the plaintiff, and at the same time, it is out of the first floor of the real estate stated in the attached Table to the plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On July 1, 2017, the Plaintiff purchased real estate listed in the separate sheet from C on July 1, 2017 and completed the registration of ownership transfer on July 20, 2017.

B. On July 2, 2012, the Defendant entered into a contract with C on the lease of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) on a deposit of KRW 90 million, monthly rent of KRW 3 million, and the period from July 2, 2012 to July 2, 2017 (hereinafter “instant lease contract”). From that time, the Defendant occupied the instant real estate from that time to that of the closure of the pleadings, and is operating the head office.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of evidence A1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. The Plaintiff’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion expressed his/her intent to refuse renewal to the Defendant via D around May 2017. As such, the instant lease agreement terminated upon the expiration of the period on July 2, 2017.

Even if not, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the termination of the instant lease contract by serving a duplicate of the complaint of this case, and six months thereafter, the instant lease contract was terminated and terminated.

B. First of all, it is insufficient to acknowledge that C expressed its intent to refuse the renewal of the instant lease agreement to the Defendant on or around May 2017 only with the statement of evidence No. 5, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

The instant lease contract was implicitly renewed.

However, the plaintiff may notify at any time the termination of the contract pursuant to the proviso of Article 639(1) and Article 635 of the Civil Act, and the notification of such termination shall become effective after the lapse of six months.

As the Plaintiff notified the Defendant that the instant lease agreement will be terminated by serving a duplicate of the instant complaint, the instant lease agreement was terminated on April 28, 2018, which was six months from October 29, 2017 when the duplicate of the instant complaint was served on the Defendant.

Therefore, the defendant shall, unless there are other special circumstances.

arrow