logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2018.08.29 2017가단14229
건물인도 등
Text

1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant B each point out of the buildings listed in the attached list, e.g., (b) walp, balp, balp, and walp.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On August 26, 2010, Defendant B entered into a lease agreement of KRW 2 years, lease deposit amounting to KRW 10,000,000, monthly rent amounting to KRW 800,000 on the ship (hereinafter “the instant real property”) part (a) of 59.22 square meters in sequence of each point in the attachment table among the buildings listed in the attached list.

(The deposit actually paid is KRW 7,00,000, and the monthly rent was KRW 1,000,000 on February 1, 2013, and became KRW 900,000 on February 2016.

Defendant C occupied the instant real estate with the permission of Defendant B and operated a store.

C. Defendant B was unable to pay the monthly rent from around 2013 to July 2017, and Defendant B was 8,380,000 won that was sealed by July 2017.

On June 26, 2017, the Plaintiff’s intent to terminate the lease contract on the grounds of the rent delay was served on Defendant B.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 17, purport of whole pleadings

2. According to the facts found in the judgment, since the lease contract was lawfully terminated, Defendant B delivered the instant real estate to the Plaintiff, and paid the amount calculated by the ratio of KRW 900,000 per month from August 26, 2017 to the completion date of delivery of the instant real estate, and Defendant C is obligated to withdraw from the instant real estate.

(1) The Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff shall pay 1,00,000 won per month from October 20, 2016 to the day the delivery of the instant real estate is completed. However, the Plaintiff asserts that the sum of the rent in sealed exceeds KRW 7,00,000 on July 2017, and the monthly rent is KRW 90,000 on February 2, 2016. The Defendants asserted that the lease deposit is KRW 20,000,000, and there was no damage equivalent to KRW 46,480,000 on the aggregate due to the care of the Plaintiff’s old building.

The defendants' assertion is insufficient to recognize the defendants' assertion only with the descriptions of the evidence Nos. 1 and 18.

arrow