(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2016.05.13 2015가단226117

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) 서울남부지방법원 2016.05.13 2015가단226117

건물명도

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 May 13, 2008, Nonparty D entered into a contract to purchase a building listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant building”) which was one’s own ownership on the same year before the registration of ownership transfer.

8. On August 18, 2018, with respect to the entire third floor of the instant building (hereinafter “instant office”), a lease agreement was concluded between Nonparty E and a deposit of KRW 50 million, monthly rent of KRW 4 million, and the lease period of KRW 17, 2013 (60 months) (hereinafter “the first lease agreement”).

B. On April 2, 2009, the Plaintiff entered into a contract to purchase the instant building from the said D and the same year.

6. 30. Completion of the registration of ownership transfer and succession to the status of a lessor, and the same year.

8. 4. A lease contract was concluded with F who succeeded to the status of lessee from the above E with the same content as the first lease contract, and thereafter, following the lessee’s change, a lease contract was concluded with H on September 28, 2009 and the same content as the first lease contract with H on November 8, 2010 (hereinafter “the first lease contract”).

C. On July 30, 2012, the Defendant entered into a contract with H to acquire all of the rights and all of the rights in the instant office’s lease agreement from H to KRW 215 million, and the same year.

8.2. The Plaintiff and security deposit KRW 50 million, monthly rent of KRW 4 million (excluding value-added tax), and the term of lease concluded a lease agreement on August 1, 2014 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

On the other hand, the defendant has registered the Institute of Public Notification with the trade name "I" at the office of this case and has been operated until now.

The term of the instant lease agreement to the Defendant from February 9, 2015 is the same year.

8.1. As of January, 1, 200, there was no intention to renew the contract, and at the above time, there was a demand to deliver the office of this case to its original state, and the defendant has

5. 18. The plaintiff is a commercial building.

유사 판례

-대전지방법원 2015.06.25 2014가단231085

-대구고등법원 2016.01.13 2011나6534

-수원지방법원평택지원 2016.07.20 2015가합696

-서울서부지방법원 2016.08.16 2015가단9083

-부산지방법원 2020.08.11 2019가단326147