logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2016.01.12 2015가단22785
건물명도등
Text

1. The Defendant shall deliver to the Plaintiff the real estate indicated in the attached list, and from February 17, 2015, the said real estate.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On January 2, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the content that the Plaintiff shall lease the building of two factories on the ground of the Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City DD (hereinafter “instant building”) owned by C and C at KRW 100 million per month of lease deposit and KRW 10 million per month of rent, and thereafter, for the same year.

3. 29 Additional Term of Lease was set as “from May 16, 2013 to 24 months” and C received a written consent to sublease from C that “C approves the sub-lease of the instant building to a third party.”

B. At the time, the Defendant, who had lived with the Plaintiff, opened a pharmacy in the name of “E pharmacy” from May 2013 to 102 of the instant building C, which was remodeled from around May 2013 (hereinafter “instant store”), and operated the said pharmacy up to the present day. On September 2014, the relationship with the Plaintiff was terminated.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 17, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. On September 2014, the Defendant agreed to pay KRW 16,100,000 per month to the Plaintiff as the rent for the instant store with the Plaintiff at the Hague. The Defendant paid only rent until February 16, 2015, and did not pay a rent thereafter, and did not pay a rent thereafter, thereby undermining the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff terminated the sub-lease contract with the Defendant by serving a duplicate of the instant complaint. As such, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant store to the Plaintiff and return the unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent or the rent from February 17, 2015 to the day the delivery of the said store is completed.

B. The Defendant’s assertion is a de facto lessee who leased the instant building under the name of the Plaintiff, and there was no agreement to pay the Plaintiff the rent of KRW 11 million with respect to the instant store, and even if not, the Defendant concluded a lease contract with C on June 13, 2015 with respect to the instant building.

arrow