(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2020.03.12 2019가단5181389

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2020.03.12 2019가단5181389

건물명도(인도)

Text

1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) shall deliver to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) the real estate indicated in the attached Form.

2. The defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff).

Reasons

A principal lawsuit and counterclaim shall also be deemed a principal lawsuit and counterclaim.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On September 6, 2018, the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the real estate indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant building”) and agreed to extend the lease term by January 31, 2019, while concluding an agreement between the Plaintiff and the Dispute Settlement Bank Co., Ltd. on the succession of the status of the lessor, and agreed to extend the lease term on January 28, 2019 to six months with the maturity of the lease term on July 31, 2019.

B. On January 21, 2014, the Defendant entered into a sub-lease contract with the Plaintiff, a lessee of the instant building, with the consent of the lessor, and renewed the sub-lease contract two times thereafter. The period of sublease of the final sub-lease contract from March 13, 2018 to January 31, 2019 is from February 1, 2018 to January 31, 2019.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The lease of this case was terminated as the expiration date. Since the former lessee bears the duty directly to the plaintiff who is the lessor, the defendant must deliver the building of this case to the plaintiff.

3. Determination on the grounds of a defense and a counterclaim

A. The defendant argued that the implied renewal of the sub-lease was renewed since there was no notification of the rejection of renewal between six months and one month before the expiration of the sub-lease period. However, the sub-lease can exercise the lessee's right to demand renewal on behalf of the lessee, apart from the fact that the sub-lessee can exercise the lessee's right to demand renewal on behalf of the lessee. Thus, the above argument cannot be accepted since the sub-lessee cannot assert the implied renewal of the sub-lease directly against the lessor.

B. The Defendant asserted for the premium cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s claim until receiving KRW 80,000 premium from the Plaintiff, and also seek the payment of the premium against the Defendant as a counterclaim.

However, the defendant who is only the former lessee.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.03.12 2019가단5181389

-서울고등법원 2017.02.07 2016나2053235

-대전지방법원 논산지원 2017.08.25 2017고단247

-대법원 1995. 12. 12. 선고 95다23996 판결

-의정부지방법원 2019.05.16 2018나207190