logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원성남지원 2015.09.04 2014가단38448
건물인도 등
Text

1. The claim of this case is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff (appointed party).

Reasons

1. Presumed factual basis

A. On October 9, 2012, the Defendant leased a building listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant shopping mall”) owned by C from C (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with a deposit of KRW 20 million, monthly rent of KRW 220,000,000 from October 29, 2012 to October 29, 2014 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

B. After the conclusion of the instant lease agreement, the Defendant operated a restaurant with the trade name “D” in the instant commercial building as of the date of the closing of argument, and completed the registration of the instant commercial building as its place of business on November 1, 2012.

C. On September 4, 2014, the Defendant sent a “written request for extension of lease” to C, which requires renewal of the instant lease agreement, and the said written request reached C around that time.

Plaintiff

In addition, the Appointor (hereinafter “Plaintiff, etc.”) purchased the instant commercial building from C on September 8, 2014, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on October 16, 2014.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6, Eul evidence No. 3 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion needs to recover possession for the removal and rebuilding of the instant commercial building. Thus, the Plaintiff, etc. may refuse to renew the instant lease agreement pursuant to Article 10(1)7(a) of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act (hereinafter “Commercial Building Lease Protection Act”).

Therefore, since the lease contract of this case terminated on October 29, 2014, the expiration date, the defendant is obligated to deliver the commercial building of this case to the plaintiff et al.

B. According to the facts found, the instant lease agreement has opposing power as a commercial building lease to which the Commercial Building Lease Act applies, and the Defendant requested the renewal of the contract between six months and one month before the expiration of the instant lease agreement, and thus, pursuant to Article 3(2) of the C and the Commercial Building Lease Act.

arrow