logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.06.09 2015가단5348337
건물명도
Text

1. The defendant

(a) deliver the real estate listed in the annexed real estate list;

(b) 6.3 million won and this;

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On February 23, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant on the attached real estate list (hereinafter “instant real estate”) by setting the lease period from the delivery date (from November 13, 2014 to November 12, 2014), the deposit amount of KRW 30 million, monthly rent of KRW 330,000 (including value-added tax, and payment by the 13th day of each month) (hereinafter “the instant lease”). Around that time, the Plaintiff handed over the instant real estate to the Defendant.

B. The Defendant did not pay the Plaintiff rent after May 14, 2015.

C. The Plaintiff, on November 9, 2015, declared that the instant lease agreement was terminated on the grounds of the delinquency in rent, was served on the Defendant on November 9, 2015 through a duplicate of the instant complaint.

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

2. According to the above facts of determination, since the lease contract of this case was lawfully terminated on November 9, 2015, the defendant delivered the real estate of this case to the plaintiff, and the defendant is obligated to pay 36,300,000 won (=3.3 million won in monthly rent (including value-added tax) x 11 months), which the plaintiff seeks, from May 14, 2015 to April 13, 2016, 6.3 million won in late rent and 3.3 million won in late rent (including 3.3 million won in monthly rent) from May 14, 2015 to April 13, 2016, which is the following day after the delivery date of the copy of the application for modification of the purport of this case, to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% in annual rate from April 26, 2016 to the day of complete delivery of the real estate of this case.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow