logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2019.02.19 2018가단129121
건물명도(인도)
Text

1. The Defendants deliver to the Plaintiff the real estate indicated in the attached list.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Defendants.

3.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On September 15, 2015, the Plaintiff leased the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) to Defendant B on condition that deposit KRW 3 million, monthly rent of KRW 1.5 million (payment on September 10), and the lease contract period from September 15, 2015 to September 14, 2017.

(A) No. 1, hereinafter referred to as “instant lease contract”). The above contract expressly states “I, at the time of default on the monthly rent and rent for not less than three months, take a compulsory measure (a contract termination).”

B. Defendant C completed a move-in report on February 7, 2018 on the instant real estate.

C. However, on September 6, 2018, Defendant B did not pay KRW 900,000,000,000 monthly rent for six months until September 2018, the Plaintiff sent to Defendant B a certificate of the fact that the instant lease contract was terminated on the grounds of the failure to pay monthly rent for at least three months. The Defendant received such certificate on September 7, 2018, which is the following day.

【Ground for Recognition: Statement 1, 3, and 4, without dispute (Defendant C: Judgment by service by public notice)

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. According to the above facts, it is determined that the instant lease contract was lawfully terminated due to the failure to pay the monthly rent of at least three months to Defendant B.

B. Therefore, the Defendants are obligated to deliver the instant real estate to the Plaintiff.

C. As to this, Defendant B remitted the unpaid monthly rent of KRW 900,000 to the Plaintiff on September 11, 2018, Defendant B’s claim is without merit.

However, it is merely an circumstance after the contract of this case was lawfully terminated, and it does not affect the Defendants’ duty to deliver the real estate.

3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is justified and acceptable.

arrow