logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2019.03.29 2018가단220359
건물명도(인도)
Text

1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

A. Attached 1, 2, 3, 4, 1-1 among the 1st floor of the building indicated in Attached 1.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On January 17, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with the Defendant to lease the part under item (a) of attached Table 2, 2, 3, 4, and 1 (hereinafter “instant store”) that connects each point of attached Table 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1 among the 1st floor of the building indicated in attached Table 1 of the order of the Defendant and the order of the Plaintiff without a deposit, setting the monthly rent of KRW 600,000 and the period from January 17, 2014 to July 15, 2014.

At that time, the defendant received the above store and operated a mobile phone service opening business.

B. The above lease contract has been renewed several times, and the Defendant did not pay the monthly tax of KRW 1.8 million from April 2018 to June 2018, and thereafter, did not pay the monthly tax until now.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1-1, 2-2, and Gap evidence 2, the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. The parties' assertion

A. Since at least the Plaintiff’s instant lease agreement has expired on January 17, 2019, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant store to the Plaintiff and pay the Plaintiff the amount of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent and rent until the overdue rent and the delivery of the said store.

B. The Defendant entered into a purchase transaction agreement with the Plaintiff on July 15, 2013 separate from the instant lease agreement, and thereafter, the said special purchase transaction agreement was renewed and extended until December 31, 2017. The Plaintiff’s termination of the said special contract, such as unilaterally blocking the sales code on March 1, 2017, is difficult for the Defendant’s business to pay monthly taxes.

Since the Plaintiff did not terminate the above special contract purchase transaction agreement until now, the Defendant has the right to lawfully possess the instant store in accordance with the above special contract purchase transaction agreement.

3. Determination

A. According to the above facts, the instant lease contract was terminated on January 17, 2019, which was five years from January 17, 2014, the first contract date, and thus, the period of validity expires. Thus, the Defendant shall raise objection to the Plaintiff.

arrow