(영문) 대구지방법원 2015.07.10 2015가단3669

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) 대구지방법원 2015.07.10 2015가단3669

건물명도

Text

1. From 50,00,000 to 10,000 won, the Defendant shall from October 1, 2014 to the completion date of delivery of the buildings listed in the separate sheet.

Reasons

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. (1) On April 9, 2014, the Plaintiff agreed to the Defendant that the lessor may immediately terminate this contract when the lessee fails to pay rent more than twice consecutively, setting the period from June 1, 2014 to April 22, 2017, on a deposit of KRW 50 million, monthly rent of KRW 180,000 (in advance, from June 1, 2014 to June 1, 2014) and the period from April 23, 2014 to April 22, 2017.

(2) From October 1, 2014, the Defendant began to delay the rent. On January 15, 2015, the Plaintiff sent a certificate stating the declaration of intent to terminate the instant lease on the ground of the delinquency in rent as of January 15, 2015, and the said certificate reaches the Defendant around that time.

(3) The defendant has used the store of this case as a restaurant since its delivery.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Gap evidence 5-1, Eul evidence 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the above facts finding, the termination of the instant lease agreement is legitimate on the ground that the Defendant’s overdue overdue charge reaches the two-year overdue charge.

I would like to say.

Therefore, barring special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant store to the Plaintiff and pay the Plaintiff rent or unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent of KRW 1,80,000 per month from October 1, 2014 to the completion date of the delivery.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The Defendant’s assertion that: (a) the Defendant asserted that: (b) the Plaintiff could not respond to the Plaintiff’s claim until the lease deposit is returned, as it was installed for restaurant business with a charge exceeding KRW 50,000,000 after leasing the instant store; and (c) the Plaintiff could not respond to the Plaintiff’s claim.

B. (1) The determination of the assertion is based on the following: (a) the Defendant spent the facility cost of KRW 50 million or equivalent value.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.10.16 2015가단75146

-수원지방법원안산지원 2019.10.30 2019가단58592

-대전지방법원 2015.06.03 2014가단220467

-서울동부지방법원 2014.12.09 2014가단27303

-춘천지방법원원주지원 2015.02.16 2014가단8713