logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원평택지원 2016.11.23 2016가단46746
건물명도
Text

1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) deliver the buildings listed in the separate sheet;

B. From August 9, 2016, the above-mentioned A

subsection (b).

Reasons

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with the Defendant on January 2, 2016, setting the lease deposit of KRW 10 million, monthly rent of KRW 10 million, and from January 9, 2016 to January 8, 2017 (hereinafter “the instant lease agreement”). The Defendant paid a monthly rent of at least two (2) minutes from June 9, 2016 to June 12, 2016; the Plaintiff sent the instant lease agreement to the Defendant on the grounds that the lease agreement was terminated for rent of at least two (2) annual rent of rent of the building owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant building”); the Defendant sent the instant lease agreement to the Defendant on August 12, 2016, on the ground that the instant lease agreement was terminated by not later than 30 (3) annual rent of rent of at least two (2) annual rent of the instant building; and the Defendant did not prove the content of the instant lease agreement to the Defendant until 2016.37.7.

B. According to the facts of the above recognition on the claim for the delivery of a building, the instant lease agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is deemed legally terminated on or around August 12, 2016, based on the Plaintiff’s indication of intention to terminate the lease agreement on the grounds of rent for at least two parcels of years, and the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff. (ii) The Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff on or after August 9, 2016, the claim for unjust enrichment equivalent to rent and rent after the termination of the instant lease agreement, and the fact that the Defendant occupied and used the instant building even after the termination of the instant lease agreement is confirmed to be identical to the original rent after the termination of the instant lease agreement. Therefore, the Defendant is also ratified from August 9, 2016 to the Plaintiff.

arrow