logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2018.09.19 2018나1856
건물인도
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

Reasons

Facts of recognition

On December 27, 2016, the Plaintiff leased the real estate indicated in the attachment (hereinafter referred to as “instant real estate”) to the Defendant with the lease deposit of KRW 23,00,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 1,650,000 (including value-added tax) and the lease term from February 15, 2017 to February 14, 2019.

(hereinafter “The instant lease”). The Defendant did not pay the monthly rent from June 2017, and the Defendant demanded the Plaintiff to pay the rent, and the Plaintiff paid KRW 3,00,000 on November 5, 2017, and KRW 1,500,000 on January 31, 2018, but did not pay the remainder of the rent.

On February 7, 2018, the Plaintiff sent a certificate of content to seek payment of KRW 7,050,000,000 in overdue rent. On February 13, 2018, the Plaintiff sent a certificate of content that the instant lease contract is terminated on the grounds of the overdue rent of at least 3 years. Each content-certified mail was served on the Defendant around that time.

On the other hand, the defendant currently occupies the real estate of this case.

[Reasons for Recognition] Fact-finding, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, and the purport of the entire argument is determined. According to the above fact-finding, since the contents-proof mail containing the plaintiff's expression of intent to terminate the lease contract of this case, which was caused by the defendant's delinquency of not less than three years of rent, is delivered to the defendant around February 13, 2018, the lease contract of this case is terminated, the defendant is obligated to deliver the real estate of this case to

(1) The Plaintiff’s claim in this case should be accepted on September 20, 2018. However, the Plaintiff’s claim in this case should be accepted on the ground that the lease contract in this case had already been terminated on or around February 13, 2018.

The judgment of the first instance is just in conclusion, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.

arrow