logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 동부지원 2018.07.12 2017가단210879
임료등청구
Text

1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)

A. The attached Form 1. The indication of the first floor of the real estate indicated in the attached list.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On August 18, 201, E and Plaintiff A, who were co-owners of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant building”), concluded a lease agreement with the Defendant on a deposit of KRW 30,000,000 for the part A on board as indicated in paragraph (1) of the order of the instant building, and KRW 1,50,000 for the rent month (value-added tax separate, payment on August 18, 201 through August 17, 2015 (48 months), and delivered the instant lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) to the Defendant around that time.

B. On July 8, 2015, the Plaintiff, A, and the Defendant agreed to extend the lease term of the instant lease to more than two years.

C. After that, on January 18, 2017, Plaintiff B succeeded to the lessor status of the instant store at the same time upon receipt of the registration of co-ownership transfer for one-half of the instant building from E on January 17, 2017, and at the same time upon receipt of the registration of co-ownership transfer for trade.

The Plaintiffs, around March 30, 2017, planned to remove the instant building to the Defendant, sent a certificate to the effect that the instant store will be delivered immediately after the termination of the term of the instant lease agreement.

E. Meanwhile, the Defendant, while occupying the store of this case until the date of the closing of argument in this case, is operating a mountain diversity store.

F. On April 27, 2018, when the instant lawsuit was pending, the Plaintiffs deposited KRW 30,000,000 as to the instant store under [134] No. 134 in the Changwon District Court (Seoul High Court) in 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, 2-1, Gap evidence 2-1, Gap evidence 3-1, Gap evidence 14, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. According to the above fact of recognition as to the extradition claim, the instant lease agreement was terminated on August 18, 2017.

Therefore, the defendant, who is the lessee of the store of this case, is a joint lessor.

arrow