(영문) 의정부지방법원 2017.09.27 2017나202297

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) 의정부지방법원 2017.09.27 2017나202297

건물명도

Text

1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

The defendant from the plaintiff 26,398,070 to August 1, 2017.

Reasons

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant on November 19, 2013, the term of the contract from January 1, 2013 to October 31, 2015, the lease deposit amount of KRW 38,10,000, and the rent of KRW 253,690 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) and delivered the instant real estate to the Defendant. The fact that the said lease agreement was terminated on October 31, 2015 is not disputed between the parties, or that the said lease agreement was terminated by the expiration of the period of contract from January 1, 2013 to October 31, 2015, is recognized in accordance with the purport of the entire entries and arguments in subparagraph 2-6.

B. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to deliver the real estate of this case to the plaintiff, except in extenuating circumstances.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. 1) As to the assertion regarding the renewal of a contract, the Defendant filed an application for the instant lease deposit loan with the Korea Scenic Savings Bank (hereinafter “the Korea Scenic Savings Bank”) as collateral, and confirmed whether there was any reason to restrict the prior designation of the Korea Scenic Savings Bank, and the Korea Scenic Savings Bank did not conclude a lease renewal contract with the Plaintiff since the Plaintiff was still pending in a lawsuit to inform the Korea Scenic Savings Bank of the absence of prior provisional seizure, and even if there was a seizure and collection order on the instant lease deposit, the Plaintiff must conclude a renewal contract with the Defendant. (2) However, the evidence submitted by the Defendant alone is insufficient to acknowledge the above assertion, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and even if the Defendant’s assertion was acknowledged, it cannot be deemed a legitimate ground to refuse the Plaintiff’s request for the extradition of the instant case. Therefore, the Defendant’s above assertion is without merit.

B. 1 The defendant cannot respond to the plaintiff's request for extradition prior to the refund of the remaining lease deposit from the plaintiff."

유사 판례

-의정부지방법원 고양지원 2017.01.25 2016가단78161

-대전지방법원 2015.11.27 2015나104723

-춘천지방법원 2016.10.07 2015나4355

-수원지방법원성남지원 2017.07.07 2016가단227204

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.08.19 2020나19783