(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2016.11.16 2016가단212411

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) 서울서부지방법원 2016.11.16 2016가단212411

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 December 22, 2015, the Defendant concluded a contract from the Plaintiff to lease a lease deposit of 72.90 square meters (hereinafter “instant leased part”) on the 1st floor among the three-story buildings listed in the attached Table owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant building”) and on December 29, 2015, the lease deposit of 20 million won for monthly rent and 650,000 won for the lease period from December 30, 2015 to December 29, 2017 (hereinafter “instant lease contract”).

B. The Plaintiff had a dispute with the lessee C (hereinafter “C”) of the first floor among the instant building since before the instant lease agreement was concluded, and eventually, the lawsuit was initiated, and as of December 24, 2015, the time of the instant lease agreement, “C is paid KRW 20 million from the Plaintiff, and at the same time, ordered the Plaintiff to make a settlement that “C shall order the first floor among the instant building to order the Plaintiff.”

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence No. 4, the whole purport of pleading

2. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant violated the provision prohibiting the use, alteration of structure or sub-lease under the lease agreement of this case, and changed the use and structure after sub-lease to C or entering into a similar contract, and it is difficult to maintain trust in the lease agreement as it is no longer possible for the plaintiff to maintain trust in the lease agreement due to such reasons.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to deliver the leased part of this case which is the object of the lease to the plaintiff upon termination of the lease contract.

3. The plaintiff of this court asserted that the defendant entered into a sub-lease or sub-lease contract with C, but the evidence of Nos. 5, 6, and 8 alone is insufficient to acknowledge such fact, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Rather, if the purport of the entire argument is added to the evidence No. 1, the defendant is called C for the effective business of the leased part of this case.

유사 판례

-서울남부지방법원 2017.06.28 2016가단48543

-수원지방법원 2017.12.15 2017가합981

-수원지방법원 2017.05.18 2015가단144682

-대구지방법원 2016.01.27 2015가단38641

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.07.14 2019가단5173012