(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2017.11.07 2017가단3957

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 2017.11.07 2017가단3957

건물명도 등

Text

1. Of the instant lawsuit, the part requesting the restoration of the real estate indicated in the separate sheet shall be dismissed.

2...

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On December 26, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant to lease the instant real estate with a deposit of KRW 10,00,000, monthly rent of KRW 600,000, and the period from January 20, 2014 to January 19, 2016 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) and agreed that the Plaintiff may terminate the instant lease agreement without delay, and that there exists a separate water rate and septic tank fee.

B. The Defendant received the instant real estate around January 20, 2014, and has used and profit from the instant real estate until now.

C. At the time of February 23, 2017, the Defendant did not pay the Plaintiff the rent from September 20, 2016, and on February 23, 2017, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a content-certified mail stating that “the instant lease contract is terminated on the ground of the delinquency in rent for six months,” and the content-certified mail was served to the Defendant around that time.

Meanwhile, the Plaintiff received money from the Defendant from March 19, 2017 to May 19, 2017 and received the money for three months after filing the instant lawsuit.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, and purport of whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff, prior to the merits, sought restoration of the instant real estate to the Defendant.

It is necessary to specify the contents and scope of the plaintiff's claim in civil procedure so that it can be clearly identified. The plaintiff's claim for restoration to the original state can not be seen as specifically specifying the contents, object and method of restoration sought by the plaintiff to the extent that the plaintiff's claim does not interfere with the defendant's performance of obligation or compulsory execution.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim is unlawful because it does not specify the purport of the claim.

3. Judgment on the merits

A. According to the above findings of the determination as to the cause of the claim, this is examined.

유사 판례

-서울서부지방법원 2019.11.22 2019가단7139

-수원지방법원안산지원 2020.10.15 2019가단16901

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.04.04 2017가단5214582

-서울서부지방법원 2021.03.31 2021가단1271

-대구지방법원경주지원 2017.09.05 2015가단12515