(영문) 부산지방법원 2016.10.20 2015나48617

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 2016.10.20 2015나48617

건물명도

Text

1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked;

2. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant is dismissed.

3...

Reasons

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. Although the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant on the instant factory, the Defendant failed to pay the amount of two minutes in total on February 2, 2015 and March 2, 2015. Therefore, the lease agreement with the Defendant is terminated by serving a duplicate of the instant complaint on the grounds that the Defendant was served.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to deliver the factory of this case to the plaintiff.

B. Fact that there is no dispute over judgment, according to Gap evidence No. 1-2, the plaintiff entered into a lease contract with the defendant on September 25, 2012 with regard to the factory of this case (hereinafter "the lease contract of this case") by setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 5,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 200,000, and the lease term of 60 months, and the fact that the plaintiff delivered the factory of this case to the defendant is recognized.

However, in light of the facts without dispute, evidence Nos. 2-1 and 4 in addition to the purport of the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to pay the rent as of the end of each month under the instant lease agreement, and the Defendant did not pay the Plaintiff the rent on January 2, 2015, but thereafter, paid KRW 200,000 to the Plaintiff’s account on April 3, 2015 and April 27, 2015, it is evident that the duplicate of the instant complaint stating the intention to terminate the lease agreement reaches the Defendant on April 3, 2015.

In February 28, 2015, the Defendant paid the Plaintiff the rent for January 28, 2015, but as of March 27, 2015, the date of receipt of the complaint, the Defendant’s overdue rent was merely one portion of the rent, and there is no evidence to prove otherwise that the Defendant was in arrears of two or more parts of the rent thereafter.

Therefore, the above circumstance alone is insufficient to recognize that the right to terminate the lease contract of this case was established on the grounds of the Defendant’s delayed delay, and there is no evidence to deem otherwise.

On a different premise, the prior plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

2. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion.

유사 판례

-의정부지방법원 2021.04.22 2020나206091

-청주지방법원충주지원 2017.05.24 2017가단325

-부산지방법원 2018.09.07 2017나45094

-수원지방법원 2016.09.29 2015나20251

-수원지방법원안산지원 2016.09.28 2016가단11110