logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원성남지원 2020.12.24 2020가단210104
건물인도
Text

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

A. It receives KRW 13,867,000 from the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On March 5, 2016, the Plaintiff leased the first floor of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) to the Defendant, with a deposit of KRW 10 million,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 1,000,000, and the period from March 31, 2016 to March 30, 2018 (hereinafter “the instant lease agreement”), and the Defendant mainly manufactured military sugar while operating a food manufacturing plant in the instant real estate.

B. The instant lease contract was renewed under the same conditions as before and after the expiration of the contract term, and the Defendant was in arrears for three months from August 2, 2018 to October 2, 2018, and the Plaintiff notified the termination of the instant lease contract on November 6, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 2, 3, 6, and 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the principal lawsuit

A. (1) Determination as to the cause of the Plaintiff’s claim (1) Whether the instant lease contract was terminated (A) the Defendant’s delayed payment for the three-month period and notified the Plaintiff of the termination of the instant lease contract. Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the instant lease contract was terminated upon termination of the contract on November 6, 2018, barring any special circumstance.

I would like to say.

(B) As to this, the Defendant demanded remuneration from March 2018 to September 2018 due to the impossibility of normal operation of a factory due to water leakage in the instant building, but failed to perform the duty of the lessor to provide the leased object so that the Plaintiff may use the leased object in conformity with the purpose of the lease because the Plaintiff did not pay remuneration. Thus, the Defendant’s obligation to pay rent during the above period cannot be terminated on the ground of overdue rent due to the lack of the lessee’s obligation to pay rent.

Since the duty of the lessor to use or benefit from the object in the lease contract and the lessee's duty to pay rent are in a mutually responding relationship, the lessor shall allow the lessor to use or benefit from the object.

arrow