logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2018.10.31 2017가단237111
건물명도 및 부당이득금 반환
Text

1. The Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) indicated in the separate sheet No. 1, 5, 2, and 2 on the first floor of the building indicated in the separate sheet.

Reasons

[This lawsuit and counterclaim shall also be deemed to be a principal lawsuit and counterclaim]

1. Basic facts

A. The real estate indicated in the attached list (hereinafter “instant real estate”) was owned by the deceased D (hereinafter “the deceased”). On June 26, 2006, the deceased entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant with respect to ① the lease deposit amount of KRW 25 million with respect to the store size of 23 square meters in the attached list (a) among the instant real estate, and with respect to the lease deposit of KRW 25 million with respect to the lease deposit of KRW 25 million with respect to the lease deposit of KRW 23 square meters in the attached list (hereinafter “instant store”), from July 31, 2006 to July 30, 2008. On July 19, 2006, the lease agreement with respect to the instant real estate as indicated in the attached list (b) 20 square meters in the attached list (hereinafter “the instant housing”). The lease agreement was concluded with respect to the lease deposit of KRW 5 million with respect to the lease deposit of KRW 20 million, monthly lease period, and from August 28, 2006.

B. Meanwhile, on the other hand, the deceased died on January 21, 2017, and the inheritors owned 1/2 each of the instant real estate, and the Plaintiffs reached an agreement on the division of inherited property. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs completed the registration of ownership transfer on May 24, 2017.

C. On April 21, 2017, the Plaintiffs: (a) sought to terminate the instant lease agreement for the instant store as of July 30, 2017 for the purpose of remodeling construction of the instant real estate; and (b) issued a certificate to the effect that the instant lease agreement cannot be protected; (c) on April 28, 2017, the Plaintiffs had no intent to renew the instant lease agreement; and (d) sent a certificate to the Defendant that each of the instant stores was named as of July 30, 2017 for the instant housing as of August 2, 2018.

On the other hand, on July 6, 2017, the defendant entered into a premium contract with E with the plaintiffs, and thus, a new lessee enters into a lease contract.

arrow