logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2017.09.14 2017나206770
건물명도
Text

1. The defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff)'s appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff.

(x) principal office;

Reasons

The judgment of the court of first instance cited the plaintiff's main claim, and dismissed the defendant's counterclaim. Accordingly, the defendant filed an appeal only against the main claim in the judgment of the court of first instance.

Therefore, it is judged that only the principal claim is subject to the judgment of this court.

Basic Facts

The reasoning for this part of this Court is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

According to the facts on the basis of the judgment on the main claim, the above lease contract was terminated at the expiration of the term.

On the other hand, in ordinary cases, the amount of profit from the possession and use of real estate shall be equivalent to the rent of the real estate, and the amount equivalent to the rent after the termination of the above lease contract shall be confirmed as the same amount as the rent under the above lease contract.

Therefore, barring special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the said building to the Plaintiff, and pay unjust enrichment calculated by the ratio of KRW 880,000 per month from November 10, 2016 to the completion date of delivery of the said building from November 10, 2016, the following day after the expiration date

On the other hand, the Defendant asserts that the above lease contract was not terminated, on the basis of November 9, 2016, as of October 201, 2016, because only the rent for the first time of October 2016, the Defendant exercised the right to demand the renewal of the contract under Article 10 of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act (hereinafter “The Commercial Building Lease Protection Act”) by serving a preparatory document as of August 22, 2017 on the Plaintiff.

A request for the renewal of a contract under Article 10 of the Commercial Building Lease Act shall be exercised between six months and one month before the expiration of the lease term. The defendant's request for the renewal of the contract through the service of a preparatory document on August 22, 2017, which was after the expiration of the lease term, is unlawful.

Even if the defendant's above lease contract term expires, from six months to one month.

arrow