(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2020.02.14 2019가단139812

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 2020.02.14 2019가단139812

건물명도(인도)

Text

1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) The indication of the attached drawing(a) among the buildings listed in the attached list 1 and the buildings listed in the attached list 2.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a person who, around 2016, leased a portion of 36.15 square meters inside the ship (hereinafter referred to as the “instant store”) connected each point of the building indicated in the attached Table 1 and the building listed in the attached Table 2 among the buildings listed in the attached Table 1 and the buildings listed in the attached Table 2, and obtained permission for the business of entertainment tavern in the name of “C” in the instant store from each owner.

B. On February 10, 2019, the Plaintiff concluded a sublease contract with the Defendant by deciding to sublease the instant store at the weekly time, setting the 20,000,000 won of the sublease deposit, the monthly rent of KRW 3,50,000, and the sublease period from February 10, 2019 to August 9, 2019.

(hereinafter “The instant sublease contract”). Article 11 of the instant sublease contract provides that the Defendant’s termination of the contract without any condition where the monthly rent and public charge are unpaid for at least two months.

C. During the period of the said sub-lease, the Defendant paid the Plaintiff KRW 3,00,00,000 on February 10, 2019 as monthly rent, and KRW 3,50,00 on March 11, 2019, and the remainder of the monthly rent was refused to pay.

The Plaintiff terminated the instant sub-lease contract on the grounds of the Defendant’s delinquency in rent for not less than two months, and filed the instant lawsuit seeking the delivery of the instant store, and the duplicate of the complaint was served to the Defendant on July 26, 2019.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence 3-1, 2, Gap evidence 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Defendant’s principal safety defense against the Defendant did not have any duty to obtain the consent of the lessor, the owner of the instant sub-lease contract, and accordingly, the lessor, the owner of the instant sub-lease, could terminate the lease contract with the Plaintiff. Therefore, the lessee did not have any legitimate right of possession regarding the instant store that the lessee is the sub-lease.

유사 판례

-서울북부지방법원 2016.09.20 2016가단114467

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.09.20 2017가단5200187

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.03.24 2014가단5109634

-부산지방법원 2014.04.25 2013가단56026

-서울서부지방법원 2019.11.26 2019가단229113