(영문) 수원지방법원 안산지원 2021.01.13 2019가단75696

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) 수원지방법원 안산지원 2021.01.13 2019가단75696

건물인도

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On June 17, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with C as to the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) with C (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with the term of KRW 20,000,000, monthly rent, KRW 1,000,000, and the term of the lease from June 20, 2015 to June 19, 2017.

C Thereafter, after receiving the instant real estate from the Plaintiff and completing the registration of a business operator on July 17, 2015, C operated restaurant business on the instant real estate.

B. On June 20, 2017, the Plaintiff agreed to increase the rent of KRW 1,100,000 per month and extend the lease term until June 19, 2019. The Plaintiff drafted a lease agreement that reflects these contents.

(c)

However, on March 15, 2017, the Defendant reported marriage with C on March 15, 2017, and registered as a business operator in the instant real estate, and run the refined land business related to C’s restaurant business.

【Fact-finding without a dispute over recognition, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, Eul evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The tenant C of the instant real estate in summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion is obligated to deliver the instant real estate to the Plaintiff, as the Defendant continues to occupy the instant real estate by subleting the instant real estate or transferring the right of lease without the consent of the lessor, who is the lessor.

B. We examine the judgment, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the tenant of the real estate in this case lent or transferred the right of lease to the defendant without permission, and even if the plaintiff's title to the claim in this case is not clear, the defendant is an independent possessor who is not the tenant's possessor, in light of the relationship between the defendant and C as seen earlier, since there is no evidence to acknowledge that the defendant is an independent possessor who is not the tenant's possessor, the plaintiff's assertion cannot be accepted.

3. Conclusion

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 안산지원 2021.01.13 2019가단75696

-대구지방법원 2016.06.23 2015가합207475

-의정부지방법원 2018.11.15 2017고단3996

-수원지방법원안양지원 2019.02.14 2018가단108061

-인천지방법원 2017.09.05 2016나8053