(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2018.01.10 2016가단144437

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) 서울북부지방법원 2018.01.10 2016가단144437

건물명도

Text

1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) deliver the real estate listed in the separate sheet;

(b) from November 1, 2016 to the annexed list.

Reasons

Comprehensively taking account of the whole purport of the pleadings as to the termination of lease and the written evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 5, and 7 (including the provisional number) of the Defendant’s duty of delivery, the Plaintiff concluded a lease agreement with the Defendant on October 30, 1996, setting the real estate indicated in the attached list (hereinafter “the instant real estate”) as a deposit amount of KRW 20 million, the lease term of KRW 12 months from October 30, 1996, and delivered the instant real estate to the Defendant around that time. The said lease is permanently renewed, and the above lease has been continuously and explicitly renewed, and the Plaintiff decided to file a lawsuit lawsuit regarding the instant real estate, including the refusal to renew the lease and the filing of the extradition lawsuit against the Defendant on August 11, 2013. The Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the refusal to renew the lease on May 3, 2016, which is within six months after the termination of the lease.

According to the above facts of recognition, since the lease between the plaintiff and the defendant ends on October 30, 2016, the defendant is obligated to deliver the real estate of this case to the plaintiff.

The defendant asserts that, around 2005, the plaintiff agreed to transfer the ownership of the real estate of this case to the deceased father C, and that the plaintiff cannot respond to the plaintiff's request.

However, in light of the statement in Gap evidence No. 6, it is insufficient to recognize the above transfer of ownership only with the statement in Eul evidence Nos. 7 through 9 (including paper numbers), and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and the defendant's assertion is not acceptable.

The Defendant asserts that the Defendant, while entering into a lease contract with a deposit of KRW 20 million, paid KRW 15 million, the Defendant paid a deposit of KRW 20 million. In response, the Defendant claimed that the Defendant paid the deposit of KRW 20 million.

Since there is no evidence to support the fact that the Defendant paid all of the deposit amount of KRW 20 million, it shall be based on the calculation of the fee only for KRW 15 million as the Plaintiff is.

According to the result of appraiser D's appraisal of rent, it is reasonable to view.

유사 판례

-서울북부지방법원 2019.01.16 2018나30977

-제주지방법원 2019.10.14 2019가단50726

-수원지방법원 2016.05.25 2016가단8486

-인천지방법원부천지원 2017.06.14 2017가단102152

-인천지방법원 2015.08.19 2014가단71964