(영문) 대구지방법원 2015.08.28 2015가단105947

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) 대구지방법원 2015.08.28 2015가단105947

건물명도

Text

1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) deliver the buildings listed in the separate sheet;

(b) 3,00,000 won and paragraph (a) from March 21, 2015.

Reasons

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. (1) On November 20, 2009, the Plaintiff leased the building indicated in the attached list (hereinafter “instant apartment”) to the Defendant as the lease term from November 21, 2009 to November 20, 201, the lease deposit amount of KRW 5,000,000, and the rent of KRW 500,000 (prepaid on November 21, 2009)

(2) On April 19, 2014, the Defendant did not pay the following amounts: (a) on January 19, 2015, and on January 19, 2015, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a certificate of content (pre-announcement of compulsory execution) stating the Defendant’s declaration of intent to terminate the instant lease; and (b) around that time the certificate of content was served on the Defendant.

(3) The defendant is residing in the apartment of this case until now.

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

B. According to the above facts of recognition, the termination of the instant lease agreement is legitimate on the ground that the Defendant’s delayed payment reaches two rents.

Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant apartment to the Plaintiff, and pay the Plaintiff the damages equivalent to the rent of KRW 3,00,000 per annum from March 21, 2015 to March 21, 2015, based on the ratio of KRW 500,000 per month from April 7, 2014, November 12, 2015, as well as the total damages equivalent to the rent of KRW 3,00,000 per month from January 2, 2015, and from March 21, 2015 to the completion date of delivery of the instant apartment.

2. The defendant's assertion is alleged to the effect that the defendant substituted the remaining deposit with the plaintiff for three months, and understood to pay the deposit and rent from September 2015. However, there is no evidence to prove that such understanding was made, the above argument by the defendant is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.

유사 판례

-대구지방법원 2016.10.26 2016나514

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.08.11 2014가단223399

-춘천지방법원영월지원 2015.10.14 2015가단1180

-전주지방법원 2018.04.20 2017가단13474

-의정부지방법원고양지원 2015.07.24 2015가단7872