(영문) 대전지방법원 2015.04.28 2015가단1250

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 2015.04.28 2015가단1250

건물명도 등

Text

1. The Defendant indicated the attached drawing from March 24, 2015 to KRW 10,00,000 from the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On September 22, 2008, the Plaintiff connected each point of Section 1, 2, 3, 4 and 1 among the real estate listed in the separate sheet to the Defendant on September 22, 2008.

Some stores (hereinafter referred to as “instant real estate”) were leased KRW 10,000,000 per lease deposit, KRW 520,000 per month of rent, and KRW 520,000 per lease term from September 28, 2008 to September 23, 2010.

B. Around September 24, 2008, the Defendant received the instant real estate from the Plaintiff and operates a real estate brokerage office under the trade name “C Real Estate” up to now.

C. On September 30, 2014 and October 13, 2014 of the same year, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the termination of the said lease agreement on the grounds of delay, as the Defendant was in arrears at least three times from December 24, 2013 under the circumstance that an implied renewal was made several times regarding the said lease.

(On October 13, 2014, the notice was sent to the defendant on the following day). (D)

Since then, on February 27, 2015, the Defendant paid the Plaintiff KRW 7,280,000 in total by March 23, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4 (including branch numbers in case of additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts of the above recognition as to the claim, the above lease contract was lawfully terminated and terminated by the plaintiff's notice of termination on the ground of rent delay at least twice the defendant, and the plaintiff voluntarily returned the lease deposit to the defendant to the defendant to return the real estate of this case with repayment of the remaining money after deducting unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent to be incurred until the defendant delivers the real estate of this case and simultaneous performance. The defendant is obligated to deliver the real estate of this case to the plaintiff at the same time with repayment of the remaining money as stated in the purport of the claim.

Since the defendant has paid all that it is a smuggling, it is argued that the above lease contract will continue to be maintained, but it is above.

유사 판례

-서울동부지방법원 2017.07.13 2016가단143230

-서울동부지방법원 2016.06.01 2015가단46349

-제주지방법원 2021.03.26 2020가단60750

-수원지방법원평택지원 2019.02.07 2018가단6872

-서울동부지방법원 2020.12.24 2020가단120760