logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2020.03.10 2019가단40483
건물인도 등 청구의 소
Text

1. The Defendants shall pay to the Plaintiff each amount of KRW 8,223,379, and Defendant D shall be the scope of the property inherited from the network E.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On April 17, 2017, the Plaintiff leased the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government F Apartment G (hereinafter “instant apartment”)’s lease deposit amount of KRW 50,00,000, monthly rent of KRW 3,000,000, and the lease term of KRW 2 years until May 18, 2019. However, on May 3, 2019, the lease term was extended until May 18, 2021 and the remainder was the same condition.

B. On July 23, 2019, Nonparty E (hereinafter “the deceased”) died without his/her lineal descendant and spouse, the Defendants, the parents of the deceased, were co-inheritors of the deceased, and Defendant D was handed down with the Seoul Family Court Decision 2019Hu5890, Nov. 6, 2019.

C. As the instant apartment was in arrears from May 19, 2019, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the Deceased on August 28, 2019, seeking the delivery of the instant apartment and the payment of the overdue rent. Thereafter, the instant complaint reached the Defendants on October 18, 2019 following the procedure for correcting the party indication to which the Defendants are the party.

Defendant D, the mother of the deceased, died on August 2, 2019, left all the deceased’s animals in the instant apartment, and attempted to terminate the instant apartment lease agreement and return the instant apartment, but did not contact the Plaintiff.

Accordingly, Defendant D asked the real estate agent who arranged the instant lease agreement to inform the Plaintiff of the password of the entrance door of the instant apartment and to contact the Plaintiff, but did not contact with the Plaintiff because the Plaintiff was residing abroad.

Since then, on January 14, 2020, the Plaintiff’s mother was present at the first day for pleading of the instant case as the Plaintiff’s agent, and was aware that the apartment of the instant case was defective as above, the part of requesting the delivery of the instant lawsuit was withdrawn.

(e).

arrow