(영문) 울산지방법원 2018.05.29 2017가단57792

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) 울산지방법원 2018.05.29 2017가단57792

건물명도(인도)

Text

1. The part of the plaintiff's main claim against the name of the building shall be dismissed.

2. The defendant

a. 23,114.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On January 29, 2011, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with C, the owner of the instant building, at the time of the second and third floors (hereinafter “instant building”) from among the buildings listed in attached Table No. 2, to KRW 10 million, KRW 80,000,000, KRW 880,000, monthly rent, and KRW 880,000,000 from January 29, 201 to January 28, 2016, and operated reading rooms in the instant building.

B. On December 30, 2013, D purchased the instant building from C and completed the registration of ownership transfer. On the same day, D, by succeeding to the lessor status of the said lease agreement with the Defendant, entered the same lease agreement as the said lease agreement again. As above, the new lease agreement stated that “The cost to be entered by the lessee due to damage during the lease period should be resolved in principle by the lessee, and the internal remodeling area should be restored to its original state at the time of the expiration of the contract.”

(hereinafter referred to as “instant lease agreement”) C.

D On August 7, 2015 and August 20, 2015, the instant lease contract was terminated upon the lapse of January 28, 2016 by notifying the Defendant that he/she had no intent to renew the instant lease contract.

The Plaintiff became its owner by purchasing the instant building from D on January 14, 2016 and completing the registration of ownership transfer.

E. Upon the termination of the instant lease agreement, the Defendant did not restore the interior remodeling part of the instant building to its original state, and did not remove the items indicated in the attached Table 2, such as reading room fixtures, and the key to the instant building was placed in the second new studs, and the Plaintiff was bound to file the instant lawsuit seeking restoration of the instant building to its original state without returning the lease deposit amount of KRW 10 million under the instant lease agreement to the Defendant and removal of the attached goods.

F. The building of this case.

유사 판례

-울산지방법원 2019.05.30 2018나23568

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.04.26 2015가단137808

-수원지방법원안양지원 2015.08.20 2015가단102468

-대구지방법원포항지원 2015.09.15 2015가단6201

-수원지방법원성남지원 2015.12.23 2015가단216269