logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2018.03.13 2017가단213405
건물명도(인도)
Text

1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) receives KRW 100,000,000 from the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On November 24, 2011, the Defendant leased the part inside the ship indicated in paragraph (1) of the order (hereinafter “instant store”) from C and three other owners of the building listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant building”) to KRW 100 million, KRW 350,000,000 in the first floor of the instant building, and the lease period from November 25, 201 to March 17, 201.

B. The Defendant received the instant store on November 25, 201, and operated the restaurant at the instant store from that time.

C. Meanwhile, on March 24, 2013, the Defendant concluded each lease agreement with the former owner of the instant building and with the term of lease for the instant store from March 25, 2013 to March 24, 2015, and on March 24, 2015, the said term of lease changed from March 25, 2015 to March 25, 2017.

The Plaintiff purchased the instant building on December 29, 2015 and completed the registration of ownership transfer on March 10, 2016.

E. On December 26, 2016, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the refusal to renew the above lease agreement on the instant store, and the said notification reached the Defendant around that time.

F. On January 10, 2017, the Defendant concluded a contract on the transfer of rights with D setting the premium as KRW 100 million for the business facilities, etc. of the instant store and business rights.

G. After that, on January 12, 2017, January 17, 2017, and February 3, 2017, the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to enter into a new lease agreement with D and the instant store. In the process, the Defendant provided the Plaintiff with information on the said contract for the transfer of rights, the amount of rights under a special agreement, etc., as well as information on the ability to pay the deposit and rent.

H. However, on January 13, 2017 and February 13, 2017, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the rejection of the replacement, and notified the Plaintiff of the fact that five years have passed since the Plaintiff had not been obliged to prevent interference with the collection of premiums, and that the Plaintiff did not comply with the Defendant’s request for new rental agreement.

[Reasons for Recognition]

arrow