(영문) 대구지방법원안동지원 2017.05.10 2016가단22714

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) 대구지방법원안동지원 2017.05.10 2016가단22714

건물등철거

Text

1. The Plaintiff:

(a) Defendant B removes the real estate listed in [Attachment] Nos. 1 and 2, and delivers each site.

Reasons

1. Determination as to the plaintiff's claim against the defendant B

A. The following facts can be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings, either of the parties to the dispute or of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 5.

1) The Plaintiff is the Plaintiff’s permanent residence of 1,914 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).

(2) On January 1, 2010, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with Defendant B, setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 600,000,000 per annum, the lease term from January 1, 2010 to December 31, 2012 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with respect to the part of the instant land (hereinafter “instant leased land”), and delivered the instant leased land to Defendant B.

3) On the ground of the leased land of this case, there is a building listed in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the attached Table B owned by Defendant B. 4) Defendant B paid only KRW 400,000 to the Plaintiff out of the instant lease deposit, only KRW 250,000 per annum in 2011, and only KRW 200,000 per annum in rent from 2012 to 2015.

B. Determination 1) According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of claim, it is evident that the Defendant failed to perform the obligation to pay the lease deposit and the rent under the instant lease agreement, and it was served on October 25, 2016 with the copy of the complaint of this case, which contained the Plaintiff’s declaration of intent to terminate the instant lease agreement on the ground of nonperformance of such obligation. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to remove the buildings indicated in attached Tables 1 and 2 and deliver each site to the Plaintiff, who is the owner of the leased land of this case and the lessor, and to deliver each site to the Plaintiff. 2) The Defendant asserts that it is abuse of rights to seek removal of the building without sea, even though the Plaintiff and the Defendant were in consultation to adjust the rent amount under the instant lease agreement.

However, the above consultation procedure of Defendant B’s assertion is in progress.

유사 판례

-대전지방법원 2018.01.10 2017가단210355

-부산지방법원 2019.01.16 2016가합42650

-창원지방법원 밀양지원 2017.02.07 2016가단2569

-인천지방법원 2018.07.17 2017나64388

-수원지방법원성남지원 2015.09.16 2014가단23583