(영문) 인천지방법원부천지원 2016.10.21 2016가단105420

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) 인천지방법원부천지원 2016.10.21 2016가단105420

건물명도

Text

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. On March 11, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a lease contract with the Defendant for a deposit of KRW 100,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 3,500,000, and the lease period of KRW 100,00,00 from April 10, 2014 to April 10, 2016 (hereinafter “instant lease contract”). The fact that the Defendant occupied and used the instant store from April 10, 2014 to April 10, after the commencement of the lease period, that the Defendant occupied and used the instant store from the date of the conclusion of the pleadings in the instant case, either there is no dispute between the parties, or can be recognized by

2. The Plaintiff asserted that the instant lease agreement has expired on April 10, 2016, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant store to the Plaintiff and pay the return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent calculated by the ratio of KRW 3,500,000 per month from April 11, 2016 to the completion date of delivery of the instant store. Accordingly, the Defendant asserted that the instant lease agreement was renewed upon the Defendant’s request for renewal under Article 10 of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act, and thus, the Plaintiff cannot accept the Plaintiff’s request.

3. Determination

A. According to Article 10(1) of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act as to whether the lease contract of this case is renewed, a lessor may not refuse a request for renewal of a contract between six months and one month before the expiration of the lease term without justifiable grounds.

According to the contents of evidence No. 5-1 to No. 3, the defendant's husband C, discussed about the increase in the rent of the store of this case on February 1, 2016, which was about two months before the termination date of the instant lease agreement, and demanded the plaintiff to increase the rent of KRW 5,50,000, which is about two months before the termination date of the instant lease agreement, and it can be recognized that "if there is any means, it is necessary for the plaintiff to continue to conduct the business and operate the business in this case," and that "Korea should continue to conduct the business in this case."

참조조문

-상가건물 임대차보호법 제10조 제1항

유사 판례

-서울동부지방법원 2017.05.25 2016가단135710

-수원지방법원 안산지원 2018.10.30 2018가단4406

-서울서부지방법원 2015.05.13 2014가단253920

-인천지방법원부천지원 2016.11.17 2016가단108672

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.02.16 2015가단5333823