(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2014.05.09 2014가단102637

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) 서울북부지방법원 2014.05.09 2014가단102637

건물명도

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. On November 19, 2013, the Plaintiff: (a) notified the Defendant on the mobile phone text message to sell the real estate indicated in the attached Table (hereinafter “instant apartment”) to the Defendant; (b) notified that the lease agreement on the said apartment is not renewed on several occasions; and (c) notified that the lease agreement on the said apartment is not renewed on several occasions; and (d) the lease agreement on the said apartment has expired on January 29, 2014; (b) accordingly, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant apartment to the Plaintiff at the same time with the payment of the remainder after deducting the amount remaining after the lease deposit amount of KRW 120 million was deducted from the unpaid rent.

B. On December 6, 2011, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with respect to the instant apartment as of December 6, 201, setting the lease deposit of KRW 120 million, monthly rent of KRW 650,000,000, and the term of lease from January 30, 2012 to January 29, 2014, does not conflict between the parties.

However, Article 6 (1) of the Housing Lease Protection Act provides that "if a lessee fails to notify the lessee of the refusal of the renewal within the period from six months to one month prior to the expiration of the lease term, the lessee shall be deemed to have leased the lease under the same conditions as the former lease at the expiration of the lease term." Thus, each of the items and images of evidence Nos. 2 and 3 shall not be deemed to have notified the Defendant of the refusal of the renewal within the period from six months to one month before the expiration of the lease term of this case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, the Plaintiff's above assertion on the premise that the lease of this case was terminated

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

참조조문

-주택임대차보호법 제6조 제1항

유사 판례

-서울동부지방법원 2014.06.19 2013가단38610

-서울동부지방법원 2014.10.31 2013가단37242

-인천지방법원 2017.06.07 2016나61344

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.08.23 2019가합517102

-의정부지방법원고양지원 2019.09.06 2019가합73140