(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.09.19 2016가단5223534

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 2017.09.19 2016가단5223534

건물명도

Text

1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) from the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) to the KRW 40,700,000, from May 1, 2017 to the attached list.

Reasons

A principal lawsuit and counterclaim shall also be deemed a principal lawsuit and counterclaim.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On March 31, 2016, the Plaintiff: (a) leased the instant store owned by the Plaintiff to the Defendant KRW 110,00,000; (b) KRW 6,300,000 per tea; and (c) the period on March 30, 2018; and (d) the Defendant operated the instant store “C” at the instant store from around that time to March.

B. On June 14, 2016, Gangnam-gu Office issued a corrective order that the part of the dunes stories extended without permission to the store of this case should be removed, while it has 7 square meters in part.

Accordingly, the defendant did not pay the rent from July 1, 2016, and the plaintiff notified the defendant that the lease contract is terminated on September 12, 2016.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1, 3, 4, and 6's statements, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the claim on the principal lawsuit

A. 1) Claim for the delivery of a building: (a) the Defendant did not pay the rent to the Plaintiff for the reason that the lease contract was lawfully terminated on or around September 12, 2016 according to the Plaintiff’s declaration of intent to terminate the contract; (b) the Defendant’s assertion and determination whether to pay the rent to the Plaintiff is justifiable; and (c) the Plaintiff cannot terminate the lease contract on the ground of the Defendant’s delinquency in rent. In other words, the order was issued to the Defendant that the part of the instant store should be removed as necessary for the business, and the Defendant’s business cannot be properly carried out. The Plaintiff, as a lessor, was obligated to allow the Defendant to use and benefit from the part of the sub-story, and the Plaintiff was unable to properly perform it due to the removal order on the part of the sub-story, and thus, it is consistent with the concept of fairness and the good faith principle to view that the Defendant’s obligation to pay the rent is exempted. (b) Even in accordance with the Defendant’s argument, it is consistent with the Defendant’s argument.

유사 판례

-전주지방법원군산지원 2017.08.08 2016가단4766

-서울남부지방법원 2018.04.26 2017가단16109

-대구지방법원경주지원 2019.06.19 2019가단602

-수원지방법원안산지원 2019.10.30 2019가단58592

-인천지방법원 2020.05.22 2019나59922