(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2016.11.17 2015가단119162

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) 서울동부지방법원 2016.11.17 2015가단119162

건물명도

Text

1. The defendant,

A. It delivers to the plaintiffs 5 and 6 floors among the attached real estate indicated in the attached Form;

B. The plaintiff A 121,311 won;

Reasons

1. The following facts do not conflict between the Parties:

On March 7, 2014, Plaintiff A signed a contract for the lease of five and six floors (hereinafter “five-story shop”) among the buildings owned by the Defendant and the Plaintiffs, Songpa-gu Seoul FF ground (hereinafter “instant building”) (hereinafter “instant lease contract”), which are owned by the Plaintiffs (hereinafter “instant building”), and delivered each of the five and six floors stores to the Defendant.

On the other hand, the plaintiffs' shares in the building of this case are 1/2 shares in the plaintiffs A, 3/20 shares in the plaintiffs C and B, and 4/20 shares in the plaintiffs D.

2. Determination on the extradition claim

A. In full view of Gap evidence No. 1’s argument as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiffs set forth the monthly rent of 4,750,000 won (the fifth floor shall be KRW 2,40,000 per month; the sixth floor shall be KRW 2,350,000 per month; the last day of each month shall be KRW 2,350,000 per month) with respect to each shop of the defendant and the 5,66th floor; where the defendant has continuously failed to pay the rent at least twice, the plaintiffs agreed that the lease of this case can be terminated; however, the defendant has continuously failed to pay the rent at least twice, and it is evident on the records of this case that the defendant had continuously failed to pay the rent from December 2, 2014. The fact that the termination of the lease of this case was delivered to the defendant containing the plaintiffs’ intent.

Therefore, as the instant lease contract was lawfully terminated, the Defendant is obligated to deliver to the Plaintiffs each of the five and six floors of the instant building due to the termination of the instant lease contract, barring special circumstances.

B. Determination on the Defendant’s assertion of legitimacy of refusing to pay rent (1) The Defendant’s assertion that the removal of the main passage room on the rooftop during the above-mentioned lease period, the water storage tank pressure problem, and the water leakage floodgate system occurred.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.12.05 2017가단5173049

-서울동부지방법원 2016.11.08 2016가단125737

-울산지방법원 2017.08.09 2016가합24624

-대전지방법원 2017.01.10 2016가단24441

-수원지방법원 여주지원 2018.05.08 2018가단50647