(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.01.17 2016가단97648

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.01.17 2016가단97648

건물명도

Text

1.(a)

The defendant is from the plaintiffs 47,585,000 square meters to the 215.74 square meters among the buildings listed in the attached Form from March 31, 2016.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On August 20, 2015, the Plaintiffs concluded a lease agreement with the Defendant to set the lease term of 215.74 square meters of the first floor among the buildings listed in the attached Table (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) from September 30, 2015 to September 29, 2017, with each of the owners of the 1/2 equity shares in the buildings listed in the attached Table (hereinafter “instant building”) as KRW 3650,000 (excluding value-added tax), monthly rent of KRW 3.55 million (excluding value-added tax), monthly management fee of KRW 850,00 (excluding value-added tax) (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

B. The Defendant did not pay KRW 2,415,00 out of the rent for February 2016, and did not pay the subsequent rent.

C. In the instant complaint, the Plaintiffs expressed their intent to terminate the instant lease agreement on the grounds of non-payment of the Defendant’s fee, and the duplicate of the instant complaint was served on the Defendant on August 24, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, since the instant lease contract was terminated due to the Plaintiffs’ declaration of termination due to the Defendant’s declaration of termination due to unpaid fees, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant leased building to the Plaintiffs, and pay the amount calculated by the ratio of KRW 2,415,00 and KRW 4,950,00 per month from March 31, 2016 to the delivery date of the instant leased building.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. (1) The gist of the claim for nonperformance of a lessor’s duty is that only one motor vehicle was parked in the parking lot of the instant building to the Defendant, and the time of use was limited to 20:00.

In addition, the plaintiffs prohibited the entry of the elderly who are the primary customers of the defendant, and the plaintiffs set up the door of the building of this case on Saturdays and Sundays so that the defendant's customers are unable to use the door.

The plaintiffs are the defendants of this case.

유사 판례

-대구지방법원 2020.04.23 2019가단22668

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.06.21 2015가단185005

-서울동부지방법원 2018.12.13 2018가단130917

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.10.25 2016가단5041961

-대구지방법원상주지원 2016.09.29 2016가단1198