logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.01.09 2014가단5181278
건물명도
Text

1. The defendant shall receive KRW 77,000,000 from the plaintiff and at the same time real estate stated in the attached list to the plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On June 13, 201, the Plaintiff leased the lease deposit amount of KRW 77,00,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 4,000, and the period from June 13, 2011 to June 13, 2013, the Plaintiff leased the lease deposit amount of KRW 77,00,000,00 to the Defendant.

Since June 13, 2013, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a lease deposit of KRW 77,00,000,000, and KRW 5,000,000 per month from June 13, 2013 to June 12, 2014 for the instant store, and agreed to the lessee’s consent to the lease order without any condition at the time of new construction of a building and substantial repair of a building.

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

On April 21, 2014, which was two months before the expiration date of the instant lease agreement, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a letter verifying the content of the declaration of intention to terminate the contract upon the expiration date of the contract. The Defendant received the certificate of content on April 24, 2014.

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. According to the termination and origin of the instant lease agreement, and the Defendant’s duty basis, the instant lease agreement expired on June 12, 2014, and the lessee’s duty to restore the leased deposit and the lessor’s duty to return the deposit are in a simultaneous performance relationship. Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant store to the Plaintiff at the same time with the Plaintiff’s refund of KRW 77,00,000,000 from the Plaintiff.

B. As to the right to demand purchase of necessary expenses, beneficial expenses, and appurtenances, the Defendant asserted that KRW 10,200,000 for the purchase cost of the store in this case as necessary cost, and that the Plaintiff reimburses the amount equivalent to the above amount by asserting that 3.1 million won is as beneficial expenses such as parking lot construction cost.

In addition, while leasing the store of this case, the defendant is as shown in the annexed sheet attached to the construction work that promotes the objective convenience of the store of this case, such as kitchen, toilet, water pipeline, tent, electric facility and others.

arrow