logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2017.11.08 2017가단215833
건물인도 등 청구의 소
Text

1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant A delivers the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1, and from February 1, 2016, the said real estate.

Reasons

1. Determination as to the claim against Defendant D

A. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the statement No. 4-1 and No. 2 as part of the pre-existing house lease business, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with Defendant D to grant a deposit of KRW 1,500,00, monthly rent and allowance for bad debts (i.e., rent of KRW 89,610, a bad debts allowance of KRW 440,00) to be leased to Defendant D with a deposit of KRW 1,50,000, monthly rent and allowance for bad debts (i.e., rent of KRW 89,610) on or around January 13, 2015. The Plaintiff requested the delivery of the instant real estate to Defendant D at least three consecutive months until May 16, 2017; and (ii) on or around May 16, 2017, the Plaintiff requested the termination of the instant lease agreement on or around May 16, 2017.

B. According to the above facts of determination, since the instant lease agreement was terminated on the grounds of delinquency, such as Defendant D’s rent for at least three years, Defendant D is obligated to deliver the instant real estate to the Plaintiff and pay the amount calculated by applying the rate of KRW 90,050 per month from September 1, 2017 to the delivery date of the instant real estate.

Although Defendant D alleged to the effect that “it was defective in boilers, etc. of the instant real estate, and did not pay rent from January 2016, and thereafter delivered the instant building to the Plaintiff,” it is insufficient to recognize that the submitted evidence alone was insufficient to acknowledge that there was a defect to the extent that the payment of rent for the instant real estate was possible, and that Defendant D transferred the instant building to the Plaintiff, and that there was no other evidence to acknowledge this, Defendant D’s above assertion is without merit.

2. Defendant A, B, C, and E

arrow