(영문) 수원지방법원 2018.08.23 2018가단520201

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) 수원지방법원 2018.08.23 2018가단520201

건물인도 등

Text

1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) leave the building in the attached list and deliver the building;

(b) January 11, 2018

Reasons

1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff agreed on April 1, 2017 that "if the lessee fails to pay rent for two months, the lessor may terminate the lease contract." The defendant is operating a motor vehicle maintenance factory with the trade name "C" at that time, and occupies and uses the building as stated in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as "the building of this case") to the defendant on April 1, 2017, the lease deposit amount of KRW 30,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 3,500,000 (in addition, value-added tax, the tenth day after each month), and the lease term of April 1, 202." However, the defendant is obligated to pay the vehicle on January 10, 2018.

2. Recognizing that payment was made in August 1, 201 and that payment was not made after January 11, 2018.

Therefore, the instant lease agreement was lawfully terminated on May 16, 2018, when the copy of the complaint of the Plaintiff, which contained the intent to terminate the instant lease agreement on the ground of the Defendant’s delinquency in payment of rent for more than two years, was delivered to the Defendant. Thus, the Defendant is obligated to leave the instant building to the Plaintiff and deliver it to the Plaintiff, and pay to the Plaintiff the amount equivalent to the rent in proportion to KRW 3,850,00 per month from January 11, 2018 to the completion date of delivery of the instant building, barring special circumstances.

2. On the judgment of the defendant's assertion, the defendant asserted that the defendant cannot accept the plaintiff's claim, since the defendant's repair cost was deposited in the plaintiff's passbook, not the defendant's passbook, and the repair cost claimed by the insurance company was set off with the above repair cost refund claim, while entering into the lease contract of this case and conducting business within two months after the date of entering into the lease contract. However, the defendant's argument that the defendant's claim cannot be complied with.

유사 판례

-춘천지방법원 속초지원 2018.08.10 2018가단208

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.01.12 2017가단53867

-서울고등법원 2018.10.25 2018나2030564

-수원지방법원안산지원 2019.03.27 2018가단21524

-의정부지방법원고양지원 2019.10.23 2019가단2301