logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원안산지원 2016.11.24 2016가단56908
건물명도
Text

1. The defendant shall deliver to the plaintiff the buildings listed in the attached real estate list.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

3.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On February 27, 199, the Plaintiff and B entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with the Plaintiff on the lease of the building listed in the attached real estate list (hereinafter “the instant apartment”). In the event that B transferred the right of lease without the Plaintiff’s consent or sub-lease the leased house to another person, the Plaintiff agreed to cancel or terminate the instant lease agreement or refuse to renew the lease agreement.

B. Around February 2005, B and the defendant concluded a sales contract with the defendant to sell the apartment of this case, and the defendant around that time acquired the apartment of this case from B and possessed it until now.

C. Meanwhile, around August 27, 2014 and around December 18, 2014, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant, a resident of the instant apartment, to terminate the instant lease agreement on the grounds of the transfer of the right of lease without permission, etc.

【Facts without dispute over the grounds for recognition, entries in Gap evidence 1 through 6, and purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. 1) The parties’ assertion 1) The sales contract for the instant apartment between the Plaintiff’s assertion B and the Defendant constitutes a de facto right of lease transfer contract. Since B and the Defendant did not obtain the Plaintiff’s consent regarding the said transfer contract, the Plaintiff’s notification of termination is lawful. 2) The Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant acquired the right of lease for the instant apartment from B around February 2005, and occupied it in the instant apartment until now since that time, and the Plaintiff did not raise any objection despite being aware of such fact.

Therefore, it should be deemed that the Plaintiff implicitly consented to the lease transfer contract between B and the Defendant on the instant apartment.

B. According to the overall purport of the statement of No. 2 and the argument, the Defendant’s judgment was examined, and the Defendant’s statement of No. 2 on February 3, 2005.

arrow