(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2019.09.05 2017가단120346

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) 서울북부지방법원 2019.09.05 2017가단120346

건물명도(인도)

Text

1. The Defendants are to the Plaintiff:

(a) remove each facility listed in the separate sheet No. 1;

(b) Appendix 1 is inscribed in Appendix 2.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of G building No. 1, H, and I (hereinafter “instant real estate”) located in Nowon-gu in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu.

B. As to the instant real estate, the following lease agreement was made.

1) A lease contract No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as “Gu lease”).

A) A lessor: A lessee on October 1, 2005: A deposit amount of KRW 50 million: the lease period of KRW 5 million (excluding value-added tax, and payment on the last day of each month): From October 1, 2005 to September 30, 2007 (hereinafter “the lease of this case”): The lease date of the network E (hereinafter “the network”): A deposit amount of KRW 20 million: the monthly lease amount of KRW 4 million (payment on the last day of each month): from July 1, 2013 to June 30, 2014: the lease period of KRW 4 million: from July 1, 2013 to June 30, 2014.

C. On April 11, 2016, the Plaintiff notified the Deceased of the refusal to renew the instant lease agreement, and the Deceased did not pay that the Plaintiff would no longer end on May 31, 2016.

Defendant B was the deceased’s spouse and was divorced on September 13, 2013, and Defendant C and D inherited the deceased’s property on April 12, 2017, as the deceased’s children, but was adjudicated on qualified acceptance on November 24, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, 2, Gap evidence 2-3, Gap evidence 5-1, Eul evidence 5-6, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. At the time of the formation of the instant lease agreement by the party to the instant lease agreement, Defendant B and the Deceased maintained a matrimonial relationship, and it seems that they still maintained a substantial matrimonial relationship even after the agreement gets married.

(A) In addition, KRW 30 million, which is the difference between the former lease deposit and the lease deposit of this case, was provided to secure the rent, management fee, expenses for restoration, etc. incurred from the lease of this case, and the above KRW 30 million was provided to the defendant B.

유사 판례

-인천지방법원 2018.11.15 2018나53484

-인천지방법원 2018.09.06 2017나61457

-수원지방법원 2019.04.04 2018가단15822

-대구지방법원 2018.10.18 2018나300195

-서울북부지방법원 2015.07.16 2013가합8346