logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2017.03.17 2016가합3320
건물명도
Text

1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) deliver the first floor of the building listed in Appendix 1;

(b) Attachment 2.2.

Reasons

1. Indication of claim;

A. On May 15, 2014, the Plaintiff: (a) made a lease deposit; (b) KRW 20 million per month; (c) KRW 20 million per month; and (d) from September 15, 2014 to September 14, 2016; (c) the Defendant paid an additional deposit of KRW 20 million to the Plaintiff by September 15, 2015; and (d) determined and leased the vehicle as KRW 2.1 million per month (excluding value-added tax) to the Plaintiff before the payment of the additional deposit.

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement.” From September 15, 2014, the Defendant has obtained permission to conduct the business of the instant commercial building from around September 15, 2014 to the present date, and is operating a restaurant of “C” in the instant commercial building.

B. After September 15, 2015, the Defendant did not pay KRW 20 million and KRW 20790,000,000 for the additional deposit agreed upon even after September 15, 2015. On October 5, 2015, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant that the additional deposit and the unpaid vehicle are paid by October 14, 2015.

On July 2, 2016, the Plaintiff, who did not comply therewith, notified the Defendant that the instant lease agreement was terminated unless the Plaintiff paid by August 31, 2016, that it was the monthly rent of KRW 20 million and KRW 20 million by August 31, 2016.

C. Since the Defendant did not pay the aforementioned additional deposit and the unpaid car after August 31, 2016, the instant lease agreement was terminated on August 31, 2016.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant commercial building to the Plaintiff, and the Defendant is obliged to perform the procedure for reporting the closure of business license under the attached Table 2, which was conducted by the Defendant while running a restaurant in the instant commercial building.

In addition, since the Defendant continued to operate a restaurant in the instant commercial building up to the present day, it is reasonable to rent the Plaintiff from September 1, 2016 to the delivery of the instant commercial building, the following day after the instant lease contract is terminated.

arrow