(영문) 의정부지방법원고양지원 2020.07.08 2019가단12834

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 2020.07.08 2019가단12834

건물명도

Text

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of the instant building.

B. According to the monthly rent contract for commercial buildings (No. 1; hereinafter “instant lease contract”) dated December 22, 2018 on the instant building (hereinafter “instant building”), the lessor may terminate the lease contract in cases where the lease deposit for the instant building is KRW 5,00,000, the rent is KRW 680,000, the rent is KRW 680,000, the rent is KRW 23,000, the lease period is 12 months, and the lessee fails to pay rent at least three times.

E H H H JF G I B L L of this case, the indication of the parties to the contract at the end of the instant lease agreement is as follows:

C. The instant building is currently in a state of being kept in a factory room.

【Ground for recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, the purport of whole pleading

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. 1) The Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant on the instant building as stated in the instant lease agreement and delivered the instant building to the Defendant. However, the Defendant did not fully pay the Plaintiff the monthly rent after the conclusion of the lease agreement, and even though the Plaintiff urged the Plaintiff to pay the monthly rent by mail verifying the content of the lease agreement, the Plaintiff did not continue to pay the monthly rent. Accordingly, the Plaintiff terminated the instant lease agreement on the grounds of the Defendant’s delinquency in rent. As stated in the purport of the lease, the Plaintiff, as well as the delivery of the instant building from December 23, 2018 to the completion date of delivery of the instant building, sought unjust enrichment equivalent to KRW 680,000 and delayed payment of KRW 1,120,000 and its delayed payment damages.2) The Defendant did not enter into a lease agreement with the Plaintiff on the instant building.

The seals affixed on the instant lease agreement are not seals used by the Defendant in ordinary sense, but those affixed arbitrarily by M, which was known as a construction work relationship, without the consent of the Defendant.

Therefore, the lease contract of this case is effective against the defendant.

유사 판례

-부산지방법원 2020.05.15 2019나57725

-서울남부지방법원 2015.07.23 2015나50359

-서울북부지방법원 2017.02.10 2016가단124006

-광주지방법원 2017.11.22 2017가단505051

-의정부지방법원고양지원 2020.09.09 2019가단92434