logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 여주지원 2018.05.29 2016가단56313
건물철거 및 토지인도 등
Text

1. The main claim and the conjunctive claim in this case are all dismissed.

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

Reasons

Facts of recognition

On June 28, 2005, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a lease agreement between July 1, 2005 to June 30, 2010, the deposit amount of KRW 6 million, and KRW 500,000 per month for the instant land owned by the Plaintiff.

Afterward, the defendant laid down on the land of this case the buildings listed in the attached list No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant building”) and the instant assembly-type buildings.

In addition, on September 20, 2005, the defendant completed registration of preservation of ownership of the building of this case in the name of the plaintiff.

On September 20, 2005, the Plaintiff obtained a loan of KRW 50,000 (hereinafter “instant loan”) from the C Cooperatives as security against the instant land and building, and lent it to the Defendant.

On October 5, 2005, the Defendant made up to the Plaintiff a letter stating that “the Defendant shall pay the interest of KRW 50 million to the Defendant, and if the interest is overdue or any disadvantage is incurred to the Plaintiff, the Defendant shall waive all rights to the instant building (hereinafter “each of the instant notes”).”

On June 30, 2010, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a lease agreement between June 30, 2010 and June 30, 2013 on the instant land (hereinafter “the instant lease agreement”) with a deposit of KRW 6 million, monthly rent of KRW 700,000 (hereinafter “the instant lease agreement”).

(3) The Plaintiff and the Defendant were the owners of the instant building at the time when the leased object was indicated in the contract prepared at the time, but the leased object was indicated as the instant land and building, and as seen below, the Plaintiff and the Defendant were the Defendant, and thus, the Plaintiff and the Defendant could be deemed to have considered only the instant land as the leased object). (In the absence of dispute, each entry in the evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 5 (including

The instant lease contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant alleged by the parties to the claim was terminated on June 30, 2013, and even if the said lease contract was renewed, the Defendant did not pay the rent of KRW 700,000 per month for at least two years. Therefore, the said contract is concluded by the Plaintiff.

arrow