(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2020.06.24 2019나51590

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2020.06.24 2019나51590

건물명도(인도)

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

Claim:

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. Most of the sectional owners of G, an aggregate building to which the instant officetel belongs (hereinafter “the instant aggregate building”), delegated the management body to enter into an entrusted operation agreement with the entrusted operation company through the management body, or entered into an entrusted operation agreement with the trustee to personally engage in the entrusted operation. The above entrusted management company distributed a certain amount of profit in proportion to the sales amount of the exclusive ownership to the sectional owners.

B. The Plaintiff is the owner who completed the registration of ownership transfer on July 24, 2008 with respect to the instant officetel, and D is the owner of the instant condominium C.

D around July 1, 2017, with respect to the foregoing subparagraph C, without going through a management body of the instant condominium building, the term of the contract for the said subparagraph C was from July 1, 2017 to June 30, 2018, and the monthly rent of KRW 800,000,000,000, which may be terminated when the payment of the said rent is delayed for at least one period, and the Plaintiff and E agreed to conclude a contract identical to the said rental agreement (hereinafter “instant contract”).

C. E From June 2017 to June 29, 2017, the term of lease for the instant officetels between the Defendant and the Defendant.

9. Until 28.28. (Unless there are extenuating circumstances to the lessee, the lease term is automatically extended by the lessee’s monthly rent), the lease deposit is KRW 1.2 million, and the lease contract was entered into with a short-term lease contract with a monthly rent of KRW 1.2 million (hereinafter “instant lease contract”). The said lease has been renewed, and the Defendant currently occupies the instant officetel.

E did not pay rent to the Plaintiff from March 1, 2018, and the Plaintiff notified the termination of the instant contract to E on June 14, 2018, and the said notification reached the following day.

Then, on June 22, 2018, the Plaintiff entered into the instant contract to the Defendant.

유사 판례

-창원지방법원 2020.10.22 2019나66009

-인천지방법원 2015.07.08 2015나5613

-부산지방법원 2017.05.26 2016나9077

-창원지방법원 2019.05.16 2018가단119288

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.04.16 2018가단5154236