logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원군산지원 2019.06.18 2018가단5848
건물인도 등 청구의 소
Text

1. The defendant is against the plaintiff (appointed party), the appointed party D, and E

(a) Appendix A, 2, c. of the buildings listed in the separate sheet;

Reasons

Basic Facts

around September 2015, the Defendant issued an order No. 1-A of the buildings indicated in the separate sheet from F, which owned a building listed in the separate sheet.

The term of lease from September 15, 2015 to September 14, 2016, the lease deposit amount of KRW 5,000,000, and KRW 350,000 per month of rent was determined and leased.

On October 15, 2015, F donated a building indicated in the separate sheet to the Plaintiff (designated parties; hereinafter “Plaintiffs”) and the designated parties on October 15, 2015, and the Plaintiff and the designated parties completed the registration of ownership transfer based on donation, 1/3 shares of the above building, respectively, on the 19th day of the same month.

The Defendant paid KRW 5,00,000 to F as the rent for the instant store, and paid KRW 600,000 to the rent for the first two months, and did not pay the rent from November 15, 2015.

On September 12, 2018, the Plaintiff asked the Defendant to pay the overdue rent up to the 21st day of the same month, as the Defendant did not pay the overdue rent from November 15, 2015. If the Plaintiff did not pay the overdue rent, the Plaintiff sent a proof of the content that the lease contract will be terminated due to the overdue rent, and the content certification reached the Defendant around that time.

The defendant did not pay the overdue rent until the date specified in the above content certification. On October 8, 2018, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant in this case against the defendant and sought the delivery of the store in this case and the payment of overdue rent, but the defendant still occupies the store in this case.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings, and the decision-making parties on the duty to deliver the store of this case continue to occupy the store of this case for more than three years even after the registration of ownership transfer as to the building listed in the attached list, and the plaintiff and the designated parties continue to occupy the store of this case against the defendant.

arrow