logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원순천지원 2015.02.17 2014가단72597
건물명도
Text

1. Defendant D Co., Ltd.:

A. A. It shall deliver to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) a building specified in attached Table 1, and it shall be delivered on 25,325.

Reasons

A principal lawsuit and counterclaim shall also be deemed a principal lawsuit and counterclaim.

1. Basic facts

A. From September 15, 2012 to September 14, 2015, Plaintiff A leased the building specified in attached Table 1 to F, from September 15, 2012 to September 14, 2015, KRW 134,00,000, monthly rent of KRW 10,340,000 (hereinafter “instant lease”); thereafter, Defendant D Co., Ltd (hereinafter “Defendant D”) acquired the instant lease Nos. 1 and 2 from F on July 22, 2013, and Plaintiff A consented thereto.

B. From September 15, 2012 to September 14, 2015, Plaintiff C and B leased the building listed in paragraph (2) indicated in the separate sheet to F on August 6, 2012, KRW 120,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 9,460,000 (hereinafter “instant lease”); and thereafter, Defendant D acquired the instant lease Nos. 3 and 4 from F on October 10, 2013, and Plaintiff C and B consented thereto.

C. Article 4 of each of the instant lease agreements provides for the grounds for termination of the lease agreement in cases where the lessee fails to pay a rent on at least two consecutive occasions, and Article 2 of the Special Agreement provides for the overdue charge for the overdue rent of the lessee at 24% per annum.

Defendant D did not pay the rent from May 15, 2013 in the case of the lease Nos. 1 and 2 of this case, and from September 15, 2013 in the case of the lease Nos. 3 and 4 of this case, it is not paid as from September 15, 2013, and the above overdue rent and overdue rent are as listed in the attached Table.

On May 29, 2014, the complaint stating that the plaintiffs terminated each of the leases of this case on the ground of Defendant D's delay of rent reaches Defendant D.

E. Defendant E actually occupies each real estate listed in the current annexed list as the husband of the above F, who is the representative director of Defendant D.

【Fact that there has been no dispute, entry in Gap 1 through 4 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Plaintiff A’s claim against Defendant D against the said Defendant as indicated in the [Attachment A] as of May 15, 2014 and the termination of the lease of the Nos. 1 and 2 of this case against the said Defendant.

arrow