(영문) 인천지방법원부천지원 2014.12.17 2014가단19709

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) 인천지방법원부천지원 2014.12.17 2014가단19709

건물명도

Text

1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

A. Of the buildings listed in the separate sheet, each point of the separate sheet Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 1 is followed.

Reasons

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. (1) On May 4, 2012, the Plaintiff, among the instant buildings, leased (hereinafter “instant factory”) a deposit of KRW 100 million, monthly rent of KRW 400,000,00 (excluding value-added tax) to the Defendant, and the lessee, upon termination of the lease, planned to restore the instant factory to its original state.

(2) The Defendant paid a lease deposit and installed a container of 21 square meters on the part of the instant building (A) connected each point of No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 1 among the instant building in sequence to each point of No. 8, 9, 11, 10, and 8, and installed a container of 21 square meters on the part (B) connected each point of No. 8, 9, 11, 10, and 8, respectively, from May 15, 2013 to August 30, 2014, as the Defendant did not pay a monthly rent or a monthly rent of a unpaid rent of 65 million won until August 30, 2014, and the unpaid surcharge of 6.6 million won and the unpaid surcharge of 6.6 million won and the unpaid charge of electricity of 3 million won.

[Reasons for Recognition] No dispute between the parties, or a statement in Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 4

B. According to the above facts of recognition, the instant lease contract was terminated upon delivery to the Defendant on June 19, 2014, on the ground that the Defendant did not pay two or more months of monthly rent.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to remove the building installed in the factory of this case as its reinstatement and order the plaintiff to order the factory of this case.

2. On the judgment of the defendant's defense, the defendant does not have a duty to order the factory of this case until the deposit for lease is returned.

When a lease contract is terminated, the lessor's obligation to return the deposit and the lessee's obligation to specify the object of lease are concurrently performed.

Therefore, the defendant is entitled to the lease deposit to the plaintiff.

유사 판례

-서울서부지방법원 2017.01.12 2016가단218112

-인천지방법원부천지원 2015.01.28 2014가단29959

-서울북부지방법원 2017.05.19 2017가단1490

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.08.12 2014가단5292178

-서울서부지방법원 2015.10.29 2014가단37319