(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2015.05.15 2014나55692

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) 서울남부지방법원 2015.05.15 2014나55692

건물명도

Text

1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

The defendant shall receive 12,00,000 won from the plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On May 10, 1990, the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the building of this case, and entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant, who had previously been operating the retail store with the trade name “C” on a lease of the commercial building of this case, KRW 7 million, monthly rent of KRW 450,000,000.

On January 5, 1995, the Plaintiff and the Defendant changed the lease deposit to KRW 7 million and monthly rent to KRW 600,000,000. On December 31, 2001, without setting the lease term, the lease deposit was renewed by setting the lease deposit as KRW 12 million and monthly rent as KRW 80,000,000.

B. On March 1, 2004, the Plaintiff leased each of the instant houses to the Defendant with the lease deposit amounting to KRW 25 million, and the lease period from March 1, 2004 to March 1, 2006, and thereafter raised the lease deposit amount to KRW 27 million.

(2) The following facts: (a) No dispute exists; (b) No. 2, No. 5, No. 1, No. 4-1, and No. 4-2; and (c) the purport of the entire pleadings and arguments: (a) No. 2, No. 5, No. 1, No. 4-2;

2. The assertion and judgment

A. 1) The parties’ assertion as to the cause of the claim 1) The plaintiff asserts that since each of the instant lease agreements was terminated by the plaintiff’s notice of termination of the contract, the defendant is obligated to deliver the commercial building and the housing of this case to the plaintiff. Accordingly, the defendant asserts that the contract term of each of the instant lease agreements is until the redevelopment of the building of this case, even if the contract term is set, D, the plaintiff’s wife, was notified of termination of the contract, and that each of the instant lease agreements of this case was implicitly renewed due to the lack of the plaintiff’s notification of termination of the contract. 2) According to the overall purport of Gap’s evidence 3-1 to 4, evidence 4, evidence 6-1 to 27, and evidence 6-1 to 7, the plaintiff and the plaintiff’s wife, around 2012, D, where the building of this case is located, Geumcheon-gu.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.11.22 2017나87267

-서울서부지방법원 2020.06.05 2019가단242925

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.11.21 2017가단51052

-서울서부지방법원 2016.12.01 2014가합40978

-의정부지방법원고양지원 2017.12.14 2016가단28609