logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2016.06.30 2015나10813
건물인도등
Text

1.The judgment of the first instance, including the claims extended in the trial, shall be modified as follows:

The Defendants are the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. As to the cause of claim

A. 1) The Plaintiff is the owner of the real estate listed in the attached Table (hereinafter “instant store”). 2) The Defendants are operating a restaurant in the instant store from December 5, 2014.

3) As of December 1, 2014, the rent as of December 1, 2014 is KRW 20,600,000 per annum, KRW 1,717,00 per month, and as of March 1, 2016, the rent as of March 1, 2016 is KRW 20,90,000 per annum, monthly 1,742,00 per annum. [The reasons for recognition are as follows: (a) each entry in the evidence No. 1 and No. 4; (b) the result of the replacement appraisal by appraiser F, the purport of the entire pleadings, as a whole.

B. The Defendants are obligated to deliver the instant store to the Plaintiff, and ② to the period from December 5, 2014 to April 30, 2016 [28,490,96 won [2,966 won per month from December 5, 2014 to December 31, 2014 [2,717,00 won x 27 days x 31 days x 1,495,451 won, or 20,60 won per annum from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2015 x 20,60,000 won until December 31, 2016 x 30,00 won per annum x 30,04,00 won per annum x 30,304,74,201, x 16,304,74,201, x 16,2016

2. As to the defendants' assertion

A. The Defendants asserted that they leased the instant store from G officer G of the Plaintiff’s agent, thereby not complying with the Plaintiff’s claim.

B. On October 20, 2014, the Defendants concluded a contract to set the term of lease at KRW 20 million from November 10, 2014 to November 9, 2016, 2016, stating that the Defendant is the Plaintiff’s agent G of the CFR and the instant store as KRW 1 million. 2) CFR concluded a provisional registration on July 11, 2014 regarding the instant store on the ground of the purchase and sale agreement as of July 10, 2014, and testified that G was delegated the right to lease from the Plaintiff at the trial, but that the Defendants and the Defendants testified that they were delegated the right to lease from the Plaintiff.

arrow