logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2017.05.17 2016가단251959
건물명도
Text

1. Defendant C, D, and the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) deliver to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) real estate indicated in the separate sheet.

2...

Reasons

1. Determination on the main claim

A. 1) On September 2, 2014, the Plaintiffs are real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant building”) between Defendant C and Defendant C.

(2) As to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff agreed to provide cooperation for the change of the lessee’s name in the name of the proprietor of the beauty service license holder at the time of concluding the above lease agreement with the Defendant C, and the Plaintiff, upon entering into the said special agreement, entered into more than 1 copy of the lease agreement with the Defendant C in a formal manner on the same day. However, this is only a means for the registration of the Defendant D’s (individual) business, and the actual lessee is the employee of the Defendant C, and the fact that the Defendant D is an employee of the Defendant C does not conflict with the Plaintiff, Defendant C, and D. Around that time, the instant building was delivered to the Defendant C. However, on September 1, 2014, the Plaintiff verified the content under the Defendant D’s name.

(Evidence A No. 5). On August 19, 2016, notified the Plaintiffs that they did not wish to renew the above lease agreement.

(Plaintiffs also notified Defendant C of the termination of the above lease agreement on October 11, 2016). Meanwhile, Defendant C did not pay rent and management expenses from August 11, 2016. Nevertheless, the Defendants possessed the instant building until now. [In the absence of any grounds for recognition, the Defendants occupied the instant building, the respective entries and images of evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4 through 6, and 2, and 4, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

B. Determination 1) According to the above facts, the above lease contract is deemed to have been lawfully terminated due to the expiration of the term, even if not, it has been terminated lawfully. The Defendants are obligated to deliver the building of this case to the Plaintiffs. 2) Furthermore, Defendant C and E due to the continuous possession of the building of this case even after the termination of the above lease contract.

arrow