(영문) 인천지방법원 2015.03.10 2014가단4636

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) 인천지방법원 2015.03.10 2014가단4636

건물철거등

Text

1. The defendant shall display 19, 20, 39, 38, and 19 of the annexed drawings on the ground of the real estate stated in attached Table 1 of the attached list to the plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On August 2002, the Defendant leased the instant store owned by the Plaintiff from the Plaintiff at KRW 10 million, monthly rent of KRW 600,000,000,000 for lease deposit, and constructed household buildings, such as warehouses, such as (a), (b), (e), and (f) parts of the attached drawings (hereinafter “the instant household buildings”) on the site, and operated a joint pole with the name of “C Seokdong, Inc.”

B. On May 3, 2011, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with the Plaintiff, which provides that KRW 700,000 per month for the instant store (excluding value-added tax) and the period from May 3, 201 to May 31, 2013, and concluded a special agreement to remove the instant provisional building built by the Defendant until October 30, 201.

C. As the above lease term expires, the original Defendant agreed to increase the rent of the instant store from July 2013 to KRW 1 million per month (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”), and the Defendant paid the Plaintiff the rent increased to the Plaintiff.

After September 16, 2013, on October 16, 2013, the head of the strengthened Eup notified the Plaintiff of the restoration order that the enforcement fine will be imposed if the building of this case was not voluntarily removed without the building report, and the Plaintiff, at the latest, removed the building of this case by October 20, 2013, “The Defendant removed the building of this case by not later than October 20, 2013,” and signed and sealed by the Defendant.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence 3, 5, 6-1, 2, Eul evidence 1 and 2, the result of the survey and appraisal conducted by appraiser D, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff: The plaintiff terminates the lease contract of this case due to the defendant's failure to perform the terms of the contract.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to remove the instant building from the Plaintiff and deliver this part of the building site and the instant store to the Plaintiff.

B. Defendant: The Defendant removed part of the building of this case and used the remainder inevitably for business purpose.

유사 판례

-서울남부지방법원 2019.05.17 2018가합103915

-서울서부지방법원 2017.03.09 2016가단242009

-서울서부지방법원 2017.03.09 2016가단241846

-제주지방법원 2015.05.26 2015가단1986

-수원지방법원 2014.08.12 2013가합27780