logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2018.05.24 2017가단251971
건물명도(인도)
Text

1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On May 31, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with Defendant C, the lessee, stating that the instant building, which is a residential purpose, was leased at KRW 5 million, KRW 300,000,000 (after January 1, 201), and KRW 24 months from May 31, 2017, and Defendant C, the mother of Defendant C, signed the said lease agreement on behalf of Defendant C at the time of the said lease agreement.

After receiving the instant building from the Plaintiff, Defendant C had Defendant B reside therein under the Plaintiff’s understanding.

B. The Defendants did not pay a three-month difference from August 2017 (payment date September 1, 2017) to October ( November 1, 2017) on the ground that malodor and mycoin were produced from the instant building.

On November 3, 2017, the Plaintiff notified the Defendants that the lease contract is terminated on the grounds of the delinquency in rent.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's 1 through 4, the purport of the whole pleading

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, the lessee who is a party to the instant lease agreement is the defendant C, and the defendant B, who was represented by the defendant C, is using the object without compensation within the scope of the said lease agreement by blood relationship with the defendant C. Thus, if the said lease agreement was lawfully terminated by the defendant C's delinquency in rent, barring any special circumstance, the defendants are obliged to deliver the instant building to the plaintiff, and the defendant C is obligated to pay the unpaid rent.

B. Accordingly, the Defendants asserted to the effect that, as they acquired the right to refuse the payment of rent for reasons of the Plaintiff’s nonperformance of the repair obligation, the delay in rent did not occur.

In view of the overall purport of the pleadings in the descriptions or videos of Gap's 6, Gap's 7-1, 2, Gap's 8 through 18, Eul's 1-1, and Eul's 1-4, the defendant Eul's 1 as seen above.

arrow