logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 서부지원 2018.02.08 2017가단57629
건물명도(인도)
Text

1. The defendant points out 1, 2, 3, 4 and 1 of the same drawings among the first floor of the building attached to the plaintiff, respectively.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On October 21, 2012, C (the mother of the Plaintiff) leased the part (a) of 60.105 square meters in the ship (hereinafter “instant store”) connected each point of 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1 among the 1st floor of the building attached to the attached Form (hereinafter “instant building”) to the Defendant, determined and leased 3,00,000 won in deposit, 30,000 won in rent, 30,000 won in rent, and period from October 21, 2012 to October 20, 2014.

(hereinafter “instant lease”). B.

The Plaintiff: (a) inherited the instant building from C on December 13, 2015 and completed the registration of ownership transfer on March 17, 2016; and (b) completed the registration of ownership transfer on August 9, 2016 on the instant building due to the trust on August 8, 2016; (c) the lease agreement entered into between the truster (Plaintiff) and the lessee prior to the conclusion of the trust contract is valid in its entirety; and (d) even if there is a rent to be paid by the lessee to the truster, the lease agreement entered into between the truster (Plaintiff) and the lessee shall be valid in its entirety; and (e) the lease deposit shall be returned by the truster if the lease contract is terminated or terminated during the trust period.

C. The Defendant is in arrears with the payment of the rent from November 2015. The total amount of the rent that the Defendant paid to the lessor after October 21, 2012 is KRW 10,1100,000 (37 months).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5, purport of whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. As to the defense prior to the merits, etc., the Defendant asserted that “the Plaintiff did not pay rent to the Plaintiff, as the Plaintiff lost ownership of the instant building by trust. Inasmuch as the instant building was entrusted to a single asset trust, the Plaintiff’s claim of this case was unlawful.” However, according to the above facts of recognition, the instant lease becomes effective even after the trust of the instant building, and the right to receive rent is also the Plaintiff.

arrow