(영문) 전주지방법원 2015.06.04 2014가단39482

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) 전주지방법원 2015.06.04 2014가단39482

건물인도

Text

1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) Of the buildings indicated in the attached Form 1, the indication of drawings in the attached Form 1, 2, 7, 8, and 1.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On May 6, 2009, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant for the lease deposit of KRW 10 million, monthly rent of KRW 400,000,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 400,000,000,000 from May 20, 2009 to October 8, 201 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

B. On October 8, 2011, the Plaintiff and the Defendant implicitly renewed the lease contract even after the lapse of October 8, 201, and increased the monthly rent to KRW 750,000 from October 201.

C. On August 26, 2014, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a written notice to the effect that the lease contract expires and the instant store is delivered by October 9, 2014, and that the said written notice was delivered to the Defendant. D.

Meanwhile, during the period from May 20, 2009 to October 8, 2014, the Defendant delayed the Plaintiff with a total of KRW 1.5 million on November 201 and July 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 4 and 5-3-3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was to renew the instant lease agreement until October 8, 2014. However, the lease agreement was terminated without being renewed more than five years after the lapse of five years under the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant store and pay the unpaid rent of KRW 1.5 million and the amount calculated by applying the rate of KRW 1.75 million per month to the unjust enrichment from the day following the date of the completion of the instant lease contract to the day of the completion of delivery of the instant store.

B. At the time of the instant lease agreement, the purport of the Defendant’s assertion was that the Plaintiff agreed to renew the contract at the time of the termination of the contract, unless there is an improper act, such as the lessee’s failure to perform the contract, etc., to the Defendant, and thus, the Plaintiff again leased the instant store after October

C. According to the above facts of recognition, this case is examined.

참조조문

-상가건물 임대차보호법

유사 판례

-광주지방법원 2015.12.10 2015가단28956

-창원지방법원 마산지원 2018.11.07 2018가단100802

-서울서부지방법원 2020.01.10 2019나36916

-인천지방법원 2016.10.20 2015가단52908