(영문) 대전지방법원서산지원 2020.12.22 2020가단2986

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) 대전지방법원서산지원 2020.12.22 2020가단2986

건물인도

Text

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Reasons

1. On August 18, 2018, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with the Defendant and the Plaintiff, setting the monthly rent of KRW 30 million and KRW 24,000,000 as a period of KRW 40,000,000 per month on the indication of the real estate “Attachment” owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant apartment”). Since the Defendant’s agreement on the renewal of the lease agreement with the Defendant did not coincide with each other, the Defendant asserted that the said apartment should be delivered to the Plaintiff.

However, inasmuch as there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff notified the Defendant that he would refuse the renewal of the lease contract between six months and two months before the expiry of the lease contract, the lease contract of this case is deemed to have been renewed under the same conditions as the lease before the expiration of the lease term if the lessee fails to notify the lessee of the refusal to renew the lease within the period from six months to two months before the expiration of the lease term, or to notify the lessee that he would not renew the lease without any changes to the terms and conditions, the lease of this case shall be deemed to have been renewed under the same conditions as the lease before the expiration of the lease term. This provision shall also apply where the lessee has not notified by two months before the expiration of the lease term.).

On the other hand, the plaintiff asserted that the lease contract was not renewed by the defendant's refusal of the plaintiff's condition, but all the evidence submitted by the plaintiff were considered to have been discussed about the increase in rent before the expiration of the lease term of this case, and therefore, the above argument by the plaintiff is without merit.

2. As such, the Plaintiff’s claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

참조조문

-주택임대차보호법 제6조 제1항

유사 판례

-서울서부지방법원 2017.06.01 2016가단28128

-울산지방법원 2019.05.23 2018나24585

-서울동부지방법원 2021.04.01 2020가단15172

-의정부지방법원고양지원 2019.09.06 2019가합73140

-대전지방법원 2021.04.28 2020가단11497