(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2017.11.30 2017가단3363

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) 서울남부지방법원 2017.11.30 2017가단3363

건물명도(인도)

Text

1. From KRW 36,773,69 to KRW 3,226 from February 25, 2017 to the completion date of delivery of the building indicated in the attached Form 3,26.

Reasons

1. The Plaintiff and the Defendant maintained the lease agreement for several years with respect to the instant building during the dispute. Around August 1, 2011, the lease agreement was renewed with the following terms (hereinafter “instant lease”). Such renewed lease was maintained until August 2014, there is no particular dispute between the parties.

- The issues in this case from August 1, 201 to August 2, 2013, - The lessor and the lessee - the lessee - the lease deposit amount of KRW 40 million - the monthly rent of KRW 100,000,000;

A. (i) When the instant lease contract is terminated, the Defendant alleged to the effect that the instant lease contract was terminated as a director around August 2014 by himself/herself, but it is not sufficient to acknowledge only the statement of No. 3, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the Defendant’s above assertion is without merit.

(1) On November 28, 2017, the Defendant submitted a preparatory document on November 23, 2017, which was after the closure of the pleadings of the instant case, along with the materials to prove that he/she was a director on August 2014. However, the materials submitted by the Defendant alone are insufficient to acknowledge this. Even if the Defendant alleged that he/she was a director of the instant building to another place around August 2014, it is insufficient to deem that the instant lease contract was lawfully terminated, and there is no evidence to prove otherwise. However, according to the purport of the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff was notified by the Defendant of the termination of the instant lease contract, and the Plaintiff requested restoration, etc. to the Defendant on the premise that the instant building was terminated only by the Defendant or by the lease contract. Thus, it is reasonable to deem that the instant lease contract was terminated by agreement at that time.

B. (i) As such, the instant lease agreement was terminated on February 8, 2017, and thus, the Defendant is the Plaintiff.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 성남지원 2018.04.06 2018가단847

-춘천지방법원강릉지원 2020.02.04 2019나31310

-청주지방법원 영동지원 2018.09.07 2017가단4804

-제주지방법원 2018.01.19 2017가단57181