(영문) 전주지방법원정읍지원 2016.10.11 2015가단4632

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) 전주지방법원정읍지원 2016.10.11 2015가단4632

건물인도 등

Text

1. The Defendant delivers to the Plaintiffs the buildings listed in the separate sheet, and from March 1, 2015, KRW 3,300,000 and the above building.

Reasons

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is the heir of the lessor of the building indicated in the attached list (hereinafter “instant building”), and the Defendant is the lessee.

The defendant did not pay two or more times the rent, and the lease contract is terminated.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to deliver the building of this case to the plaintiffs and pay unpaid rent and unjust enrichment.

B. According to the purport of the entire arguments and arguments, the following facts can be acknowledged in light of the facts acknowledged as Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 8, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2.

1) The deceased E (Death on October 18, 2014) agreement on the lease deposit with respect to the building of this case between the defendant and the defendant around July 2003 (hereinafter “instant agreement”) setting the lease term of KRW 10 million, KRW 900 million per month, and the lease term of KRW 10 million per year (hereinafter “instant agreement”).

(2) On July 10, 2003, the Plaintiff received KRW 10 million from the Defendant and KRW 500,000 out of the rent on July 10, 2003, and delivered the instant building to the Defendant.

The defendant established a store in the building of this case from that time to that of the closing of the argument of this case.

3) Even after the termination of the above lease term, the instant lease contract was implicitly renewed, but from October 2004, the Defendant agreed to the rent at KRW 800,000 per month. 4) The Defendant did not pay a total of KRW 13.3 million from July 2003 to February 2015, and the Plaintiff A, one of E’s successors, notified the Defendant of the termination of the instant contract on March 2015.

The above notice reached the defendant around that time.

5 E dies, the plaintiffs jointly inherited E.

C. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant did not pay two or more times the difference according to the contract of this case, and according to the notification of the plaintiff A, the contract of this case was lawfully terminated and terminated.

Therefore, the defendant, who is a lessee, has no special circumstances.

유사 판례

-광주지방법원 2018.06.12 2018가단504390 (1)

-대구지방법원 2013.08.23 2012가단60791

-울산지방법원 2014.10.24 2014가단11801

-인천지방법원 2015.05.28 2014가단60506

-춘천지방법원원주지원 2014.12.23 2014가단3169