(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2020.01.09 2019가단5029849

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 2020.01.09 2019가단5029849

건물명도(인도)

Text

1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

A. Of the buildings listed in the attached Table list, the indication of the attached Form 3, 4, 5, 6, and 3 of the total 79.73 square meters of the three floors shall be as follows.

Reasons

1. On January 24, 2007, the Plaintiff leased three floors as stated in Paragraph (1) of the Disposition owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “the instant building”) to the Defendant at KRW 20,000,000,000, and the Defendant operated a mutual placement office of D’s trade name. The Plaintiff, around January 28, 2009, entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant as a deposit, KRW 5,000,000,000,000,000 for each year since it entered into an alteration of the lease agreement with the Defendant. The Defendant delayed the payment of the rent of KRW 12,10,00 for 22 months from April 2017 to January 2019, and the Plaintiff did not pay the subsequent rent. On November 28, 2018, the Plaintiff did not dispute between the parties to the instant lease on the ground that the termination of the lease agreement was overdue or recognized pursuant to subparagraph 1 or 9, respectively.

Therefore, inasmuch as the instant lease contract was terminated due to the Defendant’s delinquency in rent, the Defendant is obliged to deliver the third floor of the instant building to the Plaintiff, and the Defendant is obliged to pay the remaining amount at the rate of KRW 2.1 million and KRW 550,000 (including surtax) per month from January 28, 2019 to the completion date of delivery of the third floor of the instant building from January 28, 2019.

2. As to this, the Defendant asserted to the effect that, even though the Defendant requested repair due to serious leakages since 2013, the Plaintiff did not comply therewith, and that the second floor lessee of the instant building leased by the Plaintiff had much difficulty in the Defendant’s business, and thus, the Defendant should deduct or offset the damages suffered by the Defendant from the overdue rent, but the Defendant requested repair.

The evidence submitted, such as the failure to submit the materials to resist on the ground of business interference, can not be recognized, and no evidence exists to prove otherwise.

When the defendant submitted an application for resumption of pleadings, the arguments that the defendant raised late are also leading to time.

유사 판례

-부산지방법원서부지원 2019.01.08 2018가단105079

-대구지방법원서부지원 2019.11.20 2018가단13992

-서울남부지방법원 2016.04.06 2015가단11391

-대구지방법원 김천지원 2017.01.12 2016가단32342

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.07.11 2018가단5200481