(영문) 전주지방법원 2017.06.01 2016나5491 | 리걸엔진

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 2017.06.01 2016나5491

건물인도 등

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

3. Paragraph 1 of the judgment of the court of first instance is applicable.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On April 22, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant to lease the entire first floor of the attached real estate display building (hereinafter “instant building”) to the Defendant with a deposit of KRW 10 million, the rent of KRW 600,000,000,000 from May 1, 2014 to May 1, 2016 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”), and around that time, delivered the instant building to the Defendant.

Article 4 of the above lease contract provides that the lessor may terminate the contract immediately if the lessee fails to pay the rent more than twice consecutively.

B. Since then, the Plaintiff and the Defendant reduced the deposit for lease under the instant lease agreement to KRW 5 million and KRW 500,000 per month.

C. On January 11, 2016, on the ground that the Plaintiff was in arrears with the Defendant from October 1, 2015 to December 31, 2015, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a document verifying that the lease contract is terminated under the condition that the Plaintiff would pay a total of KRW 1.5 million in arrears by January 15, 2016.

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

2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the instant lease contract was terminated by the Plaintiff’s termination notice around January 15, 2016, and thus, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff, barring any special circumstance.

As the Plaintiff did not pay the rent from October 1, 2015, the Plaintiff asserted to the effect that the instant lease was immediately terminated pursuant to Article 4 of the instant lease agreement around December 1, 2015, which was two times in arrears. However, Article 4 of the instant lease agreement appears to have the right to terminate if the lease was not paid twice, and it is not deemed that the said agreement was terminated immediately regardless of the lessor’s intent.

유사 판례

-인천지방법원 2016.12.27 2016가단39735

-대전고등법원 2016.10.20 2015나2025

-수원지방법원성남지원 2016.01.15 2015가단216207

-전주지방법원 2016.10.18 2016가단9454

-광주지방법원 2018.04.19 2017가합56433