(영문) 대전지방법원 2019.11.07 2019가단14650

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) 대전지방법원 2019.11.07 2019가단14650

건물명도 등

Text

1. The defendant is against the plaintiff (appointed party) and the appointed party C:

(a) deliver the buildings listed in the separate sheet;

(b) 1,350.

Reasons

On September 4, 2018, the Plaintiff (Appointed Party A, hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and the Appointed C (hereinafter “Plaintiff C”) concluded a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with respect to the building indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant building”) with the Defendant on September 4, 2018, with respect to KRW 30 million, KRW 900,000,000,000,000,000 monthly rent, and KRW 18,000,000,000 from September 11, 2018 to August 16, 2019. The Defendant failed to pay the difference under the said lease agreement from May 2019. The Plaintiffs did not dispute between the parties who sent the Defendant the content-certified mail indicating the termination of the instant lease agreement on the grounds of the overdue arrears, or may recognize the entire purport of the submission of evidence and evidence as a whole.

Therefore, the instant lease agreement between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant was lawfully terminated due to the Defendant’s delinquency in rent at the time of service of the aforementioned content-certified mail.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to deliver the building of this case to the plaintiffs, and pay 1.35,00 won each (from May 2019 to July 2019) and 4.50,000 won each month from August 17, 2019 to the completion date of delivery of the building of this case.

The defendant asserts that the term of the lease of this case is two years under the Housing Lease Protection Act, and the term of the lease of this case has not expired. However, the reason for the termination of the lease of this case was based on the defendant's two or more years of arrears. Thus, even if the two-year term of the lease has not expired, the lease of this case was terminated as seen earlier.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

In addition, since the defendant is deducted from the lease deposit under the lease contract of this case, the claim of this case is unfair.

참조조문

-주택임대차보호법

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 안산지원 2021.02.17 2020가단9503

-인천지방법원 2015.08.21 2015가단21461

-대구지방법원서부지원 2015.12.08 2015가단12288

-수원지방법원 2020.08.20 2020가단505458

-인천지방법원 2019.04.24 2018가단23369