(영문) 부산지방법원 2015.09.17 2015가단44300

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) 부산지방법원 2015.09.17 2015가단44300

건물명도

Text

1. The Defendants shall order the Plaintiff to order each real estate listed in the separate sheet.

2. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. In light of the overall purport of the pleadings in the statement (including the provisional number) in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, the defendants agreed from the plaintiff on July 1, 2012 that a deposit of KRW 100 million, monthly rent of KRW 9240,000 (including value-added tax), and five years for lease. The defendants occupied the building of this case from around that time to May, 2013 and did not pay for 14 months out of the monthly rent from January 2013 to May 2015, and the defendants agreed to pay interest for delay at a rate of 18% per annum if they fail to pay the monthly rent by the fixed date.

2. According to the facts of the determination as to the cause of the claim, the Defendants were aware that at least two months have elapsed since the Defendants were in arrears at the end of the month stipulated in the above lease agreement. Accordingly, the above lease agreement was lawfully terminated on June 24, 2015, on which the duplicate of the complaint of this case, stating the Plaintiff’s declaration of intent to terminate the lease agreement, was served on the Defendants.

Therefore, the Defendants are jointly obligated to deliver to the Plaintiff the instant building to its original state, and jointly pay 129,360,000 won in arrears for 14-months from May 2015, as well as damages for delay, and jointly and severally liable to pay from June 1, 2015 to June 1, 2015, calculated at the rate of KRW 9240,000 per month from the date following the date of calculating the rent in arrears to the date of delivery of the said building.

3. The Defendants asserts that the Plaintiff’s claim is groundless, since the Defendants’ determination as to the Defendants’ assertion is subject to collection of the invested facilities.

However, there is no evidence to acknowledge this, and the defendants' assertion is without merit to examine further.

4. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and acceptable.

유사 판례

-대구지방법원 2018.03.06 2016가단34530

-수원지방법원 2016.07.13 2016가단14528

-서울남부지방법원 2019.06.05 2018가단24145

-광주지방법원 2020.01.07 2019가단11192

-서울동부지방법원 2016.10.26 2016가단101878