(영문) 대구지방법원안동지원 2016.05.04 2015가단3648

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 2016.05.04 2015가단3648

건물명도등

Text

1. At the same time, the Marine Lease Co., Ltd. receives KRW 10,000,000 from the Plaintiff, and the Defendants respectively are the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The following facts can be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings, either in dispute between the parties or in full view of Gap evidence Nos. 3, 6, and 7, and evidence Nos. 5-1 and 5-2:

The Plaintiff is the owner of the real estate listed in the attached Table (hereinafter referred to as “instant real estate”).

B. On November 1, 2011 and September 15, 2014, the Plaintiff leased the instant real estate as KRW 15 billion (including value-added tax) to the Foundation C (hereinafter “Nonindicted Foundation”) as a deposit for lease and KRW 52 million (including value-added tax).

C. On July 1, 2012, with the Plaintiff’s consent, Nonparty Foundation sublet each coffee specialty store (hereinafter “instant coffee specialty store”) listed in paragraph (1) of the Disposition No. 1 of the instant real estate with the agreement of the Plaintiff (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) from July 1, 2012 to June 30, 2015, with the period from July 1, 2012 to June 30, 2015.

(hereinafter “instant sublease contract”). D.

Defendant A and B are operating the coffee specialty of the instant case from Nonparty Company.

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the sub-lease contract of this case between the non-party foundation and the non-party company has expired, barring any special circumstances, and as so, the non-party company received the lease deposit amounting to KRW 10 million from the plaintiff, as the plaintiff seeks, and the defendants, the possessor of the coffee specialty of this case, the owner of the coffee specialty of this case, are obligated to deliver to the plaintiff, the owner of the coffee specialty of this case.

(B) The Defendants did not have the right to occupy the coffee specialty of this case as long as the sublease contract of this case between the non-party foundation and the non-party company expired even though the Defendant charged the coffee specialty of this case with the Plaintiff’s consent.

1) Determination on the Defendants’ assertion 1) The Defendants’ assertion is asserted.

유사 판례

-부산지방법원 2015.08.12 2014가합45778

-서울서부지방법원 2017.05.18 2016가단212077

-부산지방법원 2020.12.23 2020가합44189

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.10.11 2018가합516324

-춘천지방법원원주지원 2016.11.10 2016가단30615