(영문) 부산지방법원 동부지원 2018.09.13 2018가단3276 (1)

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 동부지원 2018.09.13 2018가단3276 (1)

건물명도(인도)등

Text

1. The defendant

(a) Attached drawings among the real estate listed in the attached Form (1), (2), (3), (4), and (1);

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On May 19, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant, setting a part of the real estate in the attached Form as KRW 5 million, monthly rent of KRW 350,000, and 24 months during the lease period, and determined that the lease agreement is to be leased in the current state as stipulated in Paragraph 1. of the Special Agreement.

B. On September 22, 2015, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a contract to add room 1 partitions to the leased object and increase the monthly rent of KRW 130,000 per month and KRW 480,000 per month.

C. Before entering into a lease agreement on May 2015, the sum of the rent overdue by the Defendant was KRW 3.1 million, and the Defendant delayed the monthly rent from May 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1-1 to Gap evidence 4, purport of whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition, the lease agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant was terminated upon delivery to the defendant of the complaint of this case, indicating the plaintiff's intention of termination on the grounds of delay of monthly rent for more than three months.

If so, the defendant is obligated to deliver the real estate indicated in the attached Form to the plaintiff, pay 3.1 million won for delay of the king, and pay 4.8 million won for each month, which is the amount equivalent to the rent from May 1, 2017 to the time of delivery of the real estate stated in the attached Form.

Although the Defendant was unable to use the attached real estate from October 2017 due to a large amount of ratss, the Plaintiff did not repair the real estate therefrom, and the Plaintiff repaired and used the boiler, etc. at the Defendant’s expense as the Plaintiff did not repair it, and the Plaintiff unilaterally was unable to use tap water around August 2017, and there was no evidence to acknowledge it.

The defendant's argument is without merit.

3. According to the conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is accepted on the ground of the reasons.

유사 판례

-부산지방법원동부지원 2019.01.10 2018가단871

-춘천지방법원원주지원 2016.11.24 2016가단4234

-서울동부지방법원 2016.05.03 2015가단129787

-의정부지방법원 2015.01.27 2014가단37163

-서울서부지방법원 2016.02.03 2015가단28824