logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원서부지원 2020.10.15 2019가단9808
건물명도등
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The registration of ownership preservation was completed in the name of D on December 29, 1989, and thereafter on October 30, 2015, the ownership was transferred to E Co., Ltd. on September 1, 2017, and the Plaintiff owned 7/10 shares and 3/10 shares, respectively. The F shares transferred to the Plaintiff on August 8, 2018, and the Plaintiff owned by himself.

B. From October 2014, the Defendants entered into a lease agreement with D on the instant commercial building with a deposit of KRW 10,00,000, monthly rent of KRW 1,100,000 (including value-added tax) and the lease term of KRW 30 from December 1, 2014 to June 30, 2017.

C. After completing the remodeling construction of the instant commercial building from September 2017 to March 2018, the Plaintiff demanded the Defendants to pay KRW 2,750,000 for monthly rent from June 2018 to KRW 605,00 for management expenses, but the Defendants recognized only KRW 605,00 for the additional management expenses imposed among the Plaintiff’s demand and paid KRW 1,100 for the existing monthly rent and KRW 605,000 for management expenses.

Meanwhile, the instant lease agreement was explicitly renewed as of June 30, 2018 after the expiration of the term, and the second implied renewal was made between July 30, 2018 and June 30, 2019.

E. The Plaintiff on February 18, 2019 and

3. 7. The Defendants issued a notice that the instant lease agreement was terminated pursuant to the proviso of Article 639(1) of the Civil Act and Article 635 of the Civil Act, and that the claim for renewal of the contract was rejected by content certification.

F. Defendants on February 18, 2019 and

2. 20. 20. The Plaintiff sent a certificate of content requiring the renewal of the instant lease agreement pursuant to Article 10 of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 2 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The allegations and judgment of the parties

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Commercial Building Lease Protection Act (hereinafter “Commercial Building Lease Protection Act”) amended by Act No. 15791)

Section 2 of Article 10.

arrow