(영문) 수원지방법원성남지원 2019.09.18 2018가단10790

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) 수원지방법원성남지원 2019.09.18 2018가단10790

건물인도 등

Text

1. The defendant shall deliver to the plaintiff all the branch floors of the building listed in the attached list.

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

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On April 24, 2018, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with Nonparty C (which became final and conclusive as a recommendation for reconciliation in the instant lawsuit) with regard to the entire area of 220.32 square meters of the land floor among the buildings listed in the separate sheet as indicated in the separate sheet as indicated in the order list, for a period from May 1, 2018 to 12 months from May 1, 2018, lease deposit amounting to KRW 20,000 (payment on May 30, 201), monthly renting KRW 20,000 (excluding additional tax and management expenses) and handed over the instant building. At that time, the Plaintiff received the entire deposit from the said C.

B. The Defendant is running a general entertainment shop business with the trade name “D” in the instant building.

(C) The following facts are revealed: (a) The lease contract of this case and the name of the business operator, business permission, etc. of the above "D" are three; (b) the defendant actually recognized that the defendant had operated the business; (c) the fact that there is no dispute; (d) the entry of the evidence Nos. 1 through 3, and

2. According to the above facts of recognition, since the lease contract of this case on April 30, 2019 expired, the defendant who occupies and uses the building of this case is obligated to deliver the building of this case to the plaintiff.

(1) In addition to the above assertion, the plaintiff asserts that the lease contract of this case was terminated on the ground of the above C's default of rent and the sub-lease without permission, etc., and the defendant raised an objection thereto, but as long as he received the claim for termination due to the expiration of the above termination period, the above termination claim shall not be judged further. 3. Accordingly, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

유사 판례

-대구지방법원경주지원 2020.05.27 2019가단12902

-수원지방법원 2018.02.14 2017가단19575

-인천지방법원 2018.07.27 2018가단11236

-전주지방법원 2016.01.13 2015가단3336

-춘천지방법원 2019.12.10 2019가단1582