(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.04.28 2016가단5168705

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 2017.04.28 2016가단5168705

건물명도

Text

1. The defendant delivered the real estate stated in the attached list to the plaintiff, and the delivery date or the completion date of the above delivery from March 2, 2017.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On August 20, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant on KRW 20,000,000, monthly rent KRW 2,420,000 (including value-added tax, and payment on the second day of the following month), between November 2, 2013 and November 1, 2014 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

B. The Defendant leased and used the instant building to the office, and thereafter, the instant lease was implicitly renewed twice.

[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Defendant did not pay the same amount as indicated below out of the rent under the instant lease agreement.

Article 4 of the instant lease agreement provides that the lessor may terminate the contract immediately if the lessee has failed to pay the rent for at least two consecutive periods.

The plaintiff shall notify the termination of the lease agreement of this case through the service of the duplicate of the complaint of this case.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to deliver the building of this case to the plaintiff and pay the unpaid rent (including value-added tax) and damages for delay.

For the period of delay in the aggregate of value-added tax on unpaid rents, KRW 220,00,000 for November 3, 2013; KRW 220,420,00 for 2,420,000 for December 1, 2013 to December 1, 206, KRW 146,67, KRW 146,67 for December 3, 2013; KRW 1,613,340 for January 3, 2014 to March 2016; and KRW 20,000 for February 20, 200 for the building from February 3, 2017 to February 3, 200 for the building from March 1, 201 to December 4, 200 for the building from March 1, 2017; and the Defendant is obligated to pay the gains from the building in this case.

B. Defendant 1’s instant building was not yet completed at the time the construction was to be occupied by the Defendant on November 2, 2013, and thus, it was difficult for the Plaintiff and the Defendant to use the building. As such, the entire rent for November 2013 and December 2013 between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.

유사 판례

-인천지방법원 2015.04.16 2014가단211243

-서울서부지방법원 2015.01.29 2014가합40022

-서울북부지방법원 2016.03.16 2015가단35246

-창원지방법원 2018.01.11 2016가단113064

-서울서부지방법원 2017.01.13 2016가단16576