(영문) 대전지방법원 2018.06.14 2017가단205025

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) 대전지방법원 2018.06.14 2017가단205025

건물명도(인도)

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On January 24, 2015, the Plaintiff agreed with the Defendant that the Plaintiff entered into a lease contract with the Defendant for lease of KRW 100,000,000 of the deposit for lease on a deposit basis (hereinafter “the instant lease contract”) and for the term from February 25, 2015 to February 25, 2017 (hereinafter “the lease contract”), and that “the lessee shall cooperate with the lessee to obtain the loan for lease on a deposit basis, and the lessor shall deposit the lease on a deposit basis only with the relevant bank at the time of eviction.”

B. On February 25, 2015, the Defendant paid the remainder of the deposit to the Plaintiff, and around that time, occupied and resided in the instant house.

C. On October 19, 2016, the Plaintiff revealed that the Plaintiff was scheduled to sell the instant house to the Defendant, and that there was no intent to renew the instant lease contract. On January 9, 2017, the instant lease contract again ends on February 25, 2017, and thereafter, the Plaintiff sent the same notice to the Defendant by means of content certification, which would restore the instant house to its original state and request delivery by February 26, 2017, and then deliver the said notice to the Defendant around that time.

On January 10, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with C to sell the instant housing as the purchase price of KRW 200,000,000, the remainder payment, and the date of delivery of real estate on February 27, 2017, and received the down payment of KRW 20,000 from C. Around that time, the Plaintiff paid KRW 80,000,000 to a licensed real estate agent D who arranged the said sales contract.

E. On February 22, 2017, the Plaintiff and the Defendant set the time and place for the delivery of the instant house and the return of the deposit for lease. At this time, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to inform the Defendant of the name and account number of the bank that provided the loan, and the Defendant paid the deposit for lease with a credit loan, not with a deposit for lease.

유사 판례

-대전지방법원 2017.11.08 2016가단210822

-제주지방법원 2017.10.31 2016가단61534

-전주지방법원 2021.02.09 2020가단28681

-서울동부지방법원 2016.03.23 2014가단53982

-서울동부지방법원 2015.04.09 2014가단48522