(영문) 수원지방법원 2019.06.20 2018가합25406

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) 수원지방법원 2019.06.20 2018가합25406

건물명도(인도)

Text

1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)

(a) deliver the real estate listed in the separate sheet;

(b) 472,450 won;

Reasons

A principal lawsuit and counterclaim shall also be deemed a principal lawsuit and counterclaim.

1. Basic facts

A. On December 9, 2015, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with the content that the real estate listed in the attached list (hereinafter “instant building”) owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant building”) shall be leased from December 9, 2015 to May 24, 2016 as the lease term of KRW 35 million, the lease deposit of KRW 35 million, and the monthly rent of KRW 2750,000 (value-Added Tax separate), but at the time of default of rent, the Plaintiff paid the said lease deposit to the Plaintiff and operated the restaurant under the name of “C” after delivery of the instant building from the Plaintiff.

B. On June 21, 2016, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with the effect that the said lease term is extended to May 24, 2017, and that the monthly rent is increased to KRW 3 million (value-added tax separate).

C. On April 12, 2017, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a certificate of content that “a lease contract is terminated as of May 24, 2017,” and the Defendant received the said certificate on April 13, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the claim on the principal lawsuit

A. (1) According to the above facts based on the determination on the grounds for the claim, the instant lease contract was terminated on May 24, 2017, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff, barring special circumstances.

(2) The Defendant’s assertion (A) refused to enter into a lease agreement with the new lessee arranged by the Defendant without justifiable grounds, and the Defendant could not deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff, if the Plaintiff took out the facilities and equipment inside the instant building and the house, etc., and accordingly, lost the opportunity to recover the premium.

유사 판례

-제주지방법원 2016.04.12 2015가단12160

-광주지방법원 2019.10.18 2019가단504618

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.04.04 2018가단5212262

-광주지방법원 순천지원 2018.04.24 2017가단70042

-제주지방법원 2018.03.28 2017나12530