(영문) 부산지방법원동부지원 2015.07.24 2014가단1302

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) 부산지방법원동부지원 2015.07.24 2014가단1302

건물인도 등

Text

1. The defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff) is Busan District Court with regard to real estate stated in the separate sheet to the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant).

Reasons

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed to be combined.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On October 13, 201, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendants and the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “the instant real estate”). As to the real estate (hereinafter “the instant real estate”), the term of the lease deposit of KRW 100,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 4,840,000 (including value-added tax) and the term of the lease from November 7, 201 to November 6, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendants to pay the interest of KRW 10,00 in addition to the interest for arrears in the event that the Defendants are in arrears at least twice a month due to a special agreement.

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). B.

The Defendants completed the registration of the establishment of chonsegwon on November 3, 201 as the receipt of No. 67055 on November 3, 201, pursuant to the terms and conditions of the instant lease agreement.

C. Since then, as the Defendants were in arrears, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendants on the termination of the instant lease agreement and seeking delivery of a building (Seoul District Court Branch Branch 2013Da1879), and on March 27, 2013, the judgment was rendered in favor of the Plaintiff, and became final and conclusive around that time. However, upon the Defendants’ request, the instant lease agreement was maintained as it is in accordance with the existing contract by paying all the overdue rent to the Defendants, despite the said judgment.

The Defendants thereafter, in the real estate of this case, engaged in the business of changing the type of business from the first intermediate restaurant to the former restaurant and the head office twice.

E. After that, even though the Defendants expressed their intent that they would wish to terminate the multiple rental contract, the Plaintiff cannot terminate the lease contract before the expiration of the contract period. On November 22, 2013, after the expiration of the contract period of this case, the Plaintiff maintained the lease contract. On November 22, 2013, the Plaintiff, Nonparty E, and the Plaintiff.

유사 판례

-부산지방법원 2016.05.18 2015가합46891

-부산지방법원동부지원 2016.09.28 2016가단2880

-부산고등법원 2017.03.23 2016나54049

-부산지방법원 2016.03.11 2014가단255646

-부산지방법원동부지원 2015.10.15 2015가단8720