logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원 2017.07.14 2017가단4371
건물인도
Text

1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) deliver one-story restaurant 126.32 square meters among the buildings listed in the attached list;

(b) 5,600.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On April 29, 2014, the Plaintiff concluded a lease agreement with the Defendant on the one-story restaurant 126.32 square meters (hereinafter “instant building”) among the real estate listed in the attached Table list with the Defendant.

(1) Lease deposit: 6,00,000 won (payment on the date of a contract) ② Monthly rent: 650,000 won (payment on the 30th day of each month in advance): From May 30, 2014: 4,00,000 won as deposit until September 30, 2014; and 600,000 won after the monthly rent.

The defendant shall pay 3,000,000 won to the plaintiff by May 30, 2014.

B. On January 16, 2017, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a content-certified mail stating that “The lease contract shall be terminated on the grounds that the Defendant would pay a deposit to the Defendant up to September 30, 2014, including KRW 4,000,000, and the monthly rent are unpaid.”

[Grounds for recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts of the above recognition, since the lease agreement entered into with the Defendant on April 29, 2014, which was lawfully terminated on the ground of the Defendant’s delinquency in rent, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff, and to pay the Plaintiff the rent of KRW 23,400,00 (=36 months x 650,000 x 650,000) and the aggregate of KRW 26,40,000,000, which the Plaintiff was paid from the Defendant, and KRW 14,80,800,000, and KRW 5,600,000, excluding the remainder of KRW 6,000, and KRW 600,000, and KRW 6,000, and KRW 600,000, and KRW 600,000, from May 30, 2017 to the date of delivery.

(A) The claim for payment of the amount stated in the claim by the plaintiff is accepted within the extent of the above recognition because the calculation of the fee is different). 3. Conclusion, the claim of this case is partially accepted within the extent of the above recognition.

arrow