(영문) 광주지방법원목포지원 2019.05.15 2018가단4749

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) 광주지방법원목포지원 2019.05.15 2018가단4749

건물명도(인도)

Text

1. The Defendants shall deliver to the Plaintiff the real estate indicated in the attached Form.

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

3...

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On July 24, 2017, the Plaintiff and Defendant C entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with Defendant C, setting the deposit amount of KRW 10,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 700,000, and the period of 12 months, on the following grounds: (a) the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

B. From September 25, 2017, Defendant C did not pay the Plaintiff the monthly rent of the instant lease agreement from around September 25, 2017.

C. Around August 2018, the Plaintiff notified Defendant C of the termination of the instant lease agreement on the grounds of the delay in payment of rent for at least two months.

Defendant B occupies the instant real estate with the mother of Defendant C.

[Ground of Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to Gap evidence 7-3 (including the number of each number)

2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the instant lease contract was terminated, and barring any special circumstance, Defendant C, the lessee, is obligated to deliver the instant real estate to the Plaintiff.

In addition, Defendant B, who possesses the instant real estate, has a duty to deliver the instant real estate to the Plaintiff, the owner of the instant real estate.

3. Judgment on the defendants' assertion

A. The Defendants asserted that, at the time of the conclusion of the instant lease agreement, the Plaintiff unilaterally increased the monthly rent of KRW 600,000 from KRW 60,000 to KRW 100,000,000 for the previous month, the payment of the delayed monthly rent and delayed damages, and that it interfered with the Defendants’ business and exercise of rights, and thus, cannot comply with the instant claim.

However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff interfered with the Defendants’ business operations and exercise of rights, as alleged by the Defendants, and the grounds alleged by the Defendants do not constitute justifiable grounds for refusing the instant extradition claim.

Therefore, this part of the defendants' assertion is without merit.

B. Defendant B is subject to the instant lease agreement.

유사 판례

-부산지방법원서부지원 2019.05.28 2018가단100722

-수원지방법원 2015.12.10 2014가합63271

-서울동부지방법원 2019.01.18 2018가단15827

-서울동부지방법원 2018.12.07 2018가합110934

-수원지방법원 2016.04.07 2015가합70207