(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2016.01.21 2015가단40051

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) 서울동부지방법원 2016.01.21 2015가단40051

건물명도 등

Text

1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) Appendix 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1, among the real estate listed in the separate sheet, shall be in order.

Reasons

1. According to Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 5 as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the defendant on August 25, 2013 on the condition that the plaintiff shall lease the real estate listed in the order No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as "the leased object of this case") owned by the defendant with the lease deposit amount of one million won, 1.5 million won, monthly rent, 1.5 million won, and 2 years of lease (hereinafter referred to as "the lease agreement of this case"), and the defendant still occupies and uses the leased object of this case without paying rent from March 26, 2015. The plaintiff filed the lawsuit of this case to terminate the lease of this case on the ground that the lease of this case was lawfully terminated by receiving the complaint of this case, according to the above recognition, the lease contract of this case was ordered to order the plaintiff to rent the leased object of this case, and the defendant is obligated to pay the rent to the plaintiff from March 26, 2015 to March 16, 2015.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. As to the summary of the claim, the Defendant demanded that the Plaintiff rent two lots of stores at the time of the instant lease agreement. However, the Plaintiff leased only one column of the leased object (store) and agreed to renew the lease by holding the Defendant operate a building without permission on the side of the leased object. Thus, the Defendant asserts that the leased object of this case cannot be transferred to the Plaintiff before receiving the lease deposit from the Plaintiff, including KRW 3,955,000, which was paid for expenses incurred in constructing a building without permission, as well as KRW 3,955,00.

B. As to the defense of simultaneous performance, the plaintiff cannot comply with the request for extradition until the lease deposit is returned first, according to the above facts, and according to the above facts, the plaintiff is the defendant.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.05.08 2019가단5077190

-서울동부지방법원 2015.03.12 2014가단48973

-서울서부지방법원 2020.11.13 2020가단247810

-부산지방법원 2019.01.16 2016가합42650

-서울동부지방법원 2015.07.16 2015가단3250