logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원경주지원 2016.05.03 2014가단13160
건물명도
Text

1. The defendant delivers the building indicated in the attached list to the plaintiff, and deliver the building from July 1, 2014 to the plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the entries in Gap evidence 1 to 4 (including paper numbers) and the whole purport of the pleadings:

The Plaintiff (title before the merger on August 1, 2013: Gyeongbuk Tourism Development Corporation) is the owner of the building listed in the attached Table (hereinafter “instant building”).

B. On January 1, 2006, the Plaintiff leased the instant building to B for general restaurants.

(hereinafter referred to as "the instant lease agreement". After that, the Plaintiff and B renewed the instant lease agreement on eight occasions, and finally, on January 1, 2013, concluded the lease agreement by setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 21,199,80 and monthly rent of KRW 1,918,840 until June 30, 2014.

C. The instant lease agreement contains a special clause stipulating that B shall not claim reimbursement of expenses under Article 203 or 626 of the Civil Act to the Plaintiff at any time in the event that B subleases the leased object, disposes of the right under the lease agreement, or transfers the facilities installed by the lessee to a third party.

The defendant is the mother of B, who has obtained the permission of B, has occupied the building of this case and operated a restaurant in this place.

E. From July 1, 2014, the Plaintiff demanded the Defendant and B to deliver the instant building.

2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to deliver the building of this case to the plaintiff, the owner of the building of this case, unless there are special circumstances.

Meanwhile, as seen earlier, the facts that B leased the instant building for the purpose of restaurant, and the Defendant occupied and used the instant building for the same purpose until now are as seen earlier, the Defendant obtained the benefits of use by occupying and using the instant building and thereby, thereby causing damage equivalent to the same amount to the Plaintiff, a lessor.

arrow