(영문) 의정부지방법원고양지원 2019.02.22 2018가단10336

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) 의정부지방법원고양지원 2019.02.22 2018가단10336

건물인도등

Text

1. The Defendant shall deliver to the Plaintiff the real estate indicated in the attached list, and deliver the said real estate from June 1, 2018.

Reasons

1. Fact-finding;

A. On October 20, 2015, the Plaintiff: (a) leased real estate listed in the attached list (hereinafter “instant real estate”) to the Defendant with a lease deposit of KRW 20 million; (b) monthly rent of KRW 2.5 million; and (c) from November 26, 2015 to November 26, 2017, the lease deposit was renewed again on September 28, 2017; and (d) agreed to the Defendant from November 30, 2017 to November 29, 2019.

B. On June 11, 2018, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of his/her intention to terminate the instant lease agreement on the grounds that the Plaintiff was in arrears from April 2018.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the facts found above as to the cause of the instant claim, since the instant lease contract was terminated on the ground that the Defendant continued to delay in rent, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant real estate to the Plaintiff, and pay the money calculated by the ratio of KRW 2860,000 per month from June 1, 2018 to the date of delivery of the said real estate (=2,600,000 + value-added tax 260,000 won) in addition to the rent (two-month portion) that the Plaintiff was the Plaintiff who was additionally paid after the notice of the termination of the contract.

B. As to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant alleged to the effect that the Defendant should recover the premium on the instant real estate on the ground that the Defendant paid KRW 40 million for the expenses for interior works. Thus, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff, a lessor at the time of the instant lease agreement, agreed to transfer the premium or interior works to the Defendant, and there is no assertion or proof as to the requirements to seek compensation for the amount equivalent to the premium on the instant real estate against the Plaintiff. Therefore, the said assertion is difficult to accept.

3. Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is above.

유사 판례

-의정부지방법원 고양지원 2018.08.10 2017가단92874

-수원지방법원 2018.08.02 2018가단510600

-의정부지방법원 고양지원 2018.09.21 2018가단78127

-서울동부지방법원 2020.02.13 2019가단103370