logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.11.30 2017가단5155218
건물명도(인도)
Text

1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) deliver one story 164.81 square meters of the buildings listed in the attached list;

(b) KRW 56.7 million;

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On March 9, 2015, the Plaintiff leased 164.81 square meters of the 1st floor among the buildings listed in the attached Table owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant store”) to the Defendant, with a deposit of KRW 40 million, KRW 5.5 million per month, KRW 5 million per month (including value-added tax, payment of KRW 20,000 per month), and the period from March 20, 2015 to March 20, 2017 (hereinafter “lease”), and the Defendant leased the instant store to operate general restaurants.

B. However, the Defendant’s failure to pay the instant rent, which was in arrears as of July 20, 2017, is KRW 56.7 million (=the total of KRW 154 million (=28 months x 5.5 million) for 28 months from March 20, 2015 to July 20, 2017) - the sum of the rent paid by the Defendant for the said 28 months.

C. On September 1, 2017, a duplicate of the complaint of this case, stating the Plaintiff’s intent to terminate the lease of this case on the grounds of delinquency in rent, such as the Defendant’s foregoing B, was served on the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above facts, since the lease of this case was lawfully terminated due to the Defendant’s delay in rent, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant store to the Plaintiff, pay the Plaintiff the overdue rent of KRW 56.7 million, and pay 5.5 million per month from July 20, 2017 to the delivery date of the instant store.

B. As to this, the Defendant asserts to the effect that the overdue rent claimed by the Plaintiff is different from the actual overdue rent, and that the Defendant, on behalf of the Plaintiff, deposited the instant store in excess of the ownership of Kimpo Office in lieu of the instant rent payment, and that this part was not considered in the calculation of the overdue rent.

However, there is no evidence to acknowledge the above allegations by the defendant. Rather, according to the statements in Gap evidence No. 4-1 and No. 2, the defendant on April 2015.

arrow