(영문) 부산지방법원 동부지원 2018.09.13 2017가단213830

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) 부산지방법원 동부지원 2018.09.13 2017가단213830

건물명도(인도)

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On October 8, 2010, the Plaintiff: (a) leased the leased deposit amount of KRW 1 million with KRW 20,000,000,000,000 in monthly rent; and (b) KRW 10,000,000,000 in monthly rent; (c) KRW 1,000,000,000 in monthly rent; and (d) KRW 24 months in entering into an initial lease contract with a child as his/her agent (hereinafter “the first lease contract”); and (e) when entering into an initial lease contract, the Plaintiff drafted a lease contract with the child as his/her agent.

B. The Plaintiff and the Defendant did not conclude a modified contract or renewed contract, and have implicitly renewed the lease contract by June 2017.

C. On June 8, 2017, the Plaintiff and the Defendant newly prepared a lease contract with the object of lease, deposit, monthly rent, and special contract to the port of the first lease contract with the object of lease, the lease deposit, the monthly rent, and the special contract with the end of 60 months from June 8, 2017.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant lease agreement”). [Grounds for recognition] No dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, Gap evidence No. 2-1 through No. 4, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Around May 2017, the Plaintiff asserted that the term of the contract was set up until October 8, 2017 according to the terms and conditions of the contract, which was implicitly renewed at the request of sale, and signed and sealed the instant building.

In addition, the Plaintiff entered into the instant lease contract in the state of mental disability with age and mental illness, and the instant lease contract is null and void as it was concluded without an agent or intermediary, or entered into a lease deposit and a monthly rent with the same lease deposit as the initial lease contract and null and void.

3. According to the reasoning of the judgment No. 5 and the purport of the witness F’s testimony and the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff is Girs and the Plaintiff is the real estate broker F, a real estate broker operating real estate brokerage business under the trade name of I real estate in Nam-gu Busan Metropolitan Government H around May 15, 2017.

유사 판례

-부산지방법원 2020.08.11 2019가단326147

-서울동부지방법원 2019.12.20 2018가단19331

-서울서부지방법원 2019.07.18 2018가단228427

-울산지방법원 2020.11.04 2019가단118783

-부산지방법원 2016.02.18 2015가단6445