(영문) 전주지방법원 2018.12.13 2018가합1451

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) 전주지방법원 2018.12.13 2018가합1451

건물명도(인도)

Text

1. The defendant shall deliver the buildings listed in the attached Table to the non-party C (D students, addresses: Tonsan-gu E in Jeonju-si).

2...

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On March 20, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with Nonparty C on a lease deposit amounting to KRW 50 million, monthly rent of KRW 1.6 million, and the lease term of KRW 2 years (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with Nonparty C, and paid the lease deposit around that time.

B. The Plaintiff was in arrears for a period of 19 months until October 2018, and C sent to the Plaintiff proof that the instant lease agreement was terminated on October 18, 2018.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant termination notice”). C.

The building of this case is currently in possession of the defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant lease agreement was terminated due to the instant termination notice that the Plaintiff was in arrears for more than two months, and that C terminated the instant lease agreement.

Therefore, in order for the Plaintiff to receive a refund of the deposit for lease deposit under the instant lease agreement from C, the Defendant who occupied the instant building must deliver the instant building to C. Therefore, the Plaintiff seeks to deliver the instant building in subrogation of C, who is the owner of the instant building.

3. According to the above facts of recognition, the lease contract of this case was terminated by the plaintiff's notice of termination of the contract of this case, and the plaintiff, who is the creditor to refund the lease deposit against C, can seek delivery of the house of this case by subrogation of C for its preservation. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the defendant is obligated to deliver the building of this case to C.

As to this, the defendant was in a relationship with the plaintiff and his partner, and the plaintiff interfered with the defendant's restaurant business, so it is unreasonable for the plaintiff to seek delivery of the house of this case, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it, and the defendant'

4. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case.

유사 판례

-청주지방법원제천지원 2019.01.23 2018가단1922

-대전지방법원 2016.09.28 2015가단26549

-수원지방법원 성남지원 2018.11.28 2018가단8704

-수원지방법원 2016.05.26 2015가합69368 (1)

-수원지방법원 2019.01.18 2018나5666