logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2018.05.04 2017가단1144
건물명도(인도)
Text

1. The defendant shall pay each of the plaintiffs KRW 1,650,000 to the plaintiffs.

2. The plaintiffs' remaining claims are all dismissed.

3.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On January 22, 2015, the Plaintiffs leased each of the real estate listed in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the attached Table 1 (hereinafter “instant building”) to the Defendant as KRW 10,000,000, and KRW 24 months from January 31, 2015 to January 31, 2017, the lease period of which was 24 months from January 31, 2015, and KRW 70,000 per rent.

(hereinafter, hereinafter, the lease of this case).

The defendant operated the Chinese restaurant in the building of this case.

C. On July 2016, the Defendant: (a) requested the Plaintiffs to terminate the instant lease agreement on the grounds of business depression; and (b) made it possible for the Plaintiffs to accept the new lessee of the instant building.

On July 31, 2016, the Defendant reported the closure of business in the Changwon Tax Office, and continued to use the instant building for business from that time.

E. On December 23, 2016, the Plaintiffs notified the Plaintiffs that the instant lease was terminated as of December 31, 2016 on the ground of the delinquency in rent, and the Defendant received this mail.

F. On July 10, 2017, the Defendant filed a report on the closure of the business license of the instant Chinese restaurant business with the Seongbuk-gu Office of Changwon-si.

G. The Defendant paid the Plaintiffs KRW 2.8 million for four months from January 31, 2015 to May 31, 2015, and did not pay to the Plaintiffs at all beginning on June 2015.

[Grounds for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 16, Eul evidence 1 to 8 (including provisional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Issues - Judgment on the point of termination of the lease of this case

A. As to the assertion that the instant lease was terminated on December 23, 2016 due to the termination of the Plaintiffs, the Defendant asserts that the instant lease had already been terminated on July 31, 2016 by the termination agreement between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant.

B. The facts recognized above are the facts recognized as above.

arrow