(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.07.24 2018가단5223064

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.07.24 2018가단5223064

건물명도(인도)

Text

1. The defendants jointly indicate 1,2,3,4,5. The attached Form No. 1,2,3,4,5.

Reasons

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

(a) The following facts may be admitted either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the entries in Gap evidence 1 to 4, 6, 7, and 8 and the purport of all pleadings:

1) On October 10, 2013, the Plaintiff is a part of 46 square meters inboard (A) connected each point of the real estate listed in the attached Table No. 1,2,3,4,5, and 1 among the real estate listed in the attached Table No. 1,2,3,45, and 1, which is owned by Defendant B and the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant store

(B) As to the lease deposit, KRW 20,000,000 for the lease deposit, KRW 2,000,00 for the tea (excluding value-added tax) and the term of the contract from October 10 to October 9, 2014 for the lease contract (hereinafter “instant lease contract”).

(2) Defendant B entered into a business registration with the trade name “D” at the instant store, and in fact Defendant C, the former wife of Defendant B, operates a restaurant at the instant store.

3. On August 14, 2018, the Plaintiff sent to Defendant B a content-certified mail stating that “The five-year lease period should not be renewed upon the expiration of October 9, 2018, and thus, the Plaintiff’s order was given to the instant store.” The mail reached Defendant B around that time.

B. According to the above facts, the instant lease agreement was explicitly renewed, and it terminated on October 9, 2018 according to the Plaintiff’s rejection notice, and thus, the Defendants are obligated to deliver the instant store to the Plaintiff, who is the lessor and the owner of the instant store, barring special circumstances.

2. Judgment on the defendants' assertion

A. The Defendants asserted that since the Plaintiff was scheduled to remove the building around 2019, the Plaintiff would operate the business at the instant store until the end of December 2018, the agreement on the business period should be observed.

However, the statement No. 1 cannot be recognized only with the statement of No. 1, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

유사 판례

-부산지방법원 2016.10.28 2016가단319469

-수원지방법원 2019.05.01 2018가단5771

-서울서부지방법원 2015.11.18 2015가합3600

-수원지방법원 여주지원 2018.09.12 2018가단1713

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.11.16 2015가단5394811