(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2018.04.25 2017가단12401

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) 서울동부지방법원 2018.04.25 2017가단12401

건물명도

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. Around March 12, 2010, C, the owner of the instant real estate, entered into a lease agreement with D with regard to the instant real estate, and entered into an agreement with D on April 23, 2010 to April 22, 2012, the deposit amount of KRW 60 million, monthly rent of KRW 3.4 million, and the said lease was explicitly renewed thereafter.

B. On May 7, 2015, around the time when the above lease contract with D was terminated, C entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant on the instant real estate (hereinafter “the instant lease”) and agreed upon the lease agreement with D as KRW 24 months from May 23, 2015, deposit amount of KRW 50 million, and monthly rent of KRW 3.6 million.

C. On December 4, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with C on the instant real estate, and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Plaintiff on January 29, 2016.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Since the lease contract of this case on the plaintiff's assertion terminated upon the expiration of the lease term, the defendant is obligated to remove partitions installed in the real estate of this case as stated in the purport of restitution to the plaintiff and deliver the real estate of this case.

In addition, since the Defendant sublets the instant real estate without the lessor’s consent and the Plaintiff terminates the instant lease agreement, the Defendant is obliged to restore the same to the Plaintiff.

3. Judgment on the argument that the period expires

A. The fact that the contract renewal term of this case expired as seen earlier, however, considering the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 4 and Eul evidence No. 4, the defendant was recognized as having requested the plaintiff to renew the lease of this case from February 2017, and the plaintiff who succeeded to the lease of this case cannot refuse the defendant's request to renew the lease of this case, and therefore, the plaintiff's assertion based on the premise that the term of the lease expires is more reasonable.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2014.12.10 2014가단5049367

-제주지방법원 2017.06.23 2016가단60265

-서울동부지방법원 2016.05.04 2015나24302

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.11.20 2018나1741

-서울서부지방법원 2021.04.09 2020가단308371