(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2020.11.06 2019가단114219

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) 서울동부지방법원 2020.11.06 2019가단114219

건물명도(인도)

Text

1. The Defendant shall deliver to the Plaintiff the entire 115.07 square meters of one story among the real estate listed in the attached list.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On June 30, 2018, the Plaintiff leased to the Defendant the first floor of the Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City’s ground building (hereinafter “instant building”) owned by himself as the deposit amount of KRW 50 million, monthly rent of KRW 4 million, and the period from June 30, 2018 to June 29, 2020, and the instant building was handed over.

B. Meanwhile, the plaintiff and the defendant are above Ga.

Upon entering into a lease agreement as described in the port, the Defendant agreed to pay KRW 30 million on August 31, 2018, and the Defendant did not pay KRW 30 million by the agreed date. As such, on February 19, 2019, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a certificate that the said lease agreement will be cancelled if it does not so, until February 26, 2019. The above content certification reached the Defendant around that time.

C. The Defendant did not pay the remainder of the deposit to the present day.

The Plaintiff filed an application against the Defendant for provisional injunction against the possession of the instant building by Seoul Eastern District Court 2019Kadan50717, and completed the provisional injunction on March 28, 2019 on the basis of the provisional injunction ruling.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 19, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant who occupies the building of this case owned by the plaintiff without title is obligated to deliver the building of this case to the plaintiff, barring special circumstances.

(2) The defendant asserts that the lease contract between the plaintiff and the defendant on the building of this case has expired on June 29, 2020, and the defendant is not only disputing the fact of possession, but also asserting that the lease contract between the plaintiff and the defendant is revoked on the ground of the plaintiff's deception, and does not dispute the existence of the right to possess since the plaintiff's deception). However, the defendant does not occupy the building of this case from January 15, 2019.

유사 판례

-서울남부지방법원 2019.12.06 2019가단238590

-대전지방법원천안지원 2020.02.12 2019가단114290

-대전지방법원 2020.06.02 2019가단113885

-춘천지방법원 원주지원 2021.02.19 2020가단56775