(영문) 의정부지방법원 2017.05.24 2017나1951

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) 의정부지방법원 2017.05.24 2017나1951

건물명도

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

1. According to Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 7, and the purport of the entire pleadings as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff is the owner of the building of this case, the plaintiff leased the building of this case to non-party C as deposit money of KRW 30,00,000, monthly rent of KRW 1,650,000 (including value-added tax) on August 17, 2013, and then notify C of the termination of the lease on the ground of overdue rent of March 30, 2016, and the defendant filed a lawsuit against Eul on the claim against Eul for the surrender of the building of this case on August 12, 2016, "C delivers the building of this case to the plaintiff, and from June 11, 2015 to June 1, 2015 to the completion date of delivery of the building of this case, the defendant obtained a favorable judgment from the person who won the building of this case until now."

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to deliver the building of this case to the plaintiff, except in extenuating circumstances.

2. As to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant asserted to the effect that there was a right to possess the instant building, as long as the Defendant transferred the instant building from C with the consent of the Plaintiff, but there is no evidence to acknowledge the fact that the Plaintiff, the owner of the instant building and the lessor obtained the consent of the Plaintiff at the time of the preceding lease. Therefore, the

In addition, the defendant alleged that the contract termination claim was not acceptable due to the premium problem between the plaintiff and C, and that the plaintiff, C, and the defendant should settle the rent. However, the defendant's refusal to request the delivery of the plaintiff's claim against the building of this case cannot be a justifiable reason for refusing to do so.

As such, the defendant's above assertion is rejected.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2016.05.10 2015나24147

-서울남부지방법원 2019.10.10 2019가단205965

-부산지방법원 2016.04.21 2015가단224953

-광주지방법원 2020.02.06 2019가단9786

-부산지방법원동부지원 2015.07.21 2014가단214931