logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2017.01.18 2016가단15454
건물철거
Text

1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) removed (attached Form) buildings listed in No. 2 of the List of Real Estate;

(b) No. 1 of the same list;

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. [Attachment] The land listed in No. 1 in the real estate list (hereinafter “instant land”) is owned by the Plaintiff on August 28, 1981, and the building listed in No. 2 of the said list (hereinafter “instant building”) is owned by the Defendant, purchased from C, the former owner on February 19, 2012, and completed the registration of ownership on April 13, 2012.

B. The Defendant, like the former owner of the instant building, paid KRW 125,00 per annum as rent for the instant land, occupied and used the instant land to own the instant building.

C. On February 29, 2016, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the purport that the rent of the instant land would be excessively low, thereby raising it to KRW 98,00 per month, and that the lease contract would be terminated if the amount increased by March 20, 2016 is not paid.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence No. 4-6, Gap evidence No. 7-1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the facts of recognition No. 1, the Plaintiff agreed to allow the Defendant to use the land of this case and make profits therefrom, and the Defendant agreed to pay the rent, which is the price therefor. Thus, this constitutes a land lease agreement.

Furthermore, since the parties have no separate period of time, it constitutes a lease with no fixed period of time. In this case, the parties may notify at any time the termination of the contract pursuant to Article 635 of the Civil Code, and the termination becomes effective when six months have elapsed since the lessor notified the termination of the contract.

On February 29, 2016, the Plaintiff requested the payment of the increased rent by March 20, 2016, and notified the termination of the contract if the Plaintiff did not comply therewith. As such, the Plaintiff did not comply with the Defendant’s refusal to comply therewith. As such, March 20, 2016.

arrow