(영문) 의정부지방법원 2018.04.20 2017가단129124

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) 의정부지방법원 2018.04.20 2017가단129124

건물명도(인도)

Text

1. The Defendant shall deliver from the Plaintiff the part of the first floor among the buildings indicated in the separate sheet from December 1, 2017 to December 25, 200,000.

Reasons

1. On July 1, 2016, the Plaintiff: (a) leased (hereinafter referred to as “instant lease”) the part of the first floor (hereinafter referred to as “instant building”) of the building indicated in the attached list to the Defendant on July 1, 2016, with a deposit of KRW 25 million; (b) KRW 800,000 per month; (c) the period from July 1, 2016 to June 30, 2018; (d) the Defendant did not pay the Plaintiff rent from December 1, 2017; and (e) the Defendant’s delivery of the copy of the instant written complaint to the Defendant on November 10, 2017, including the termination of the instant lease agreement on the grounds of the Defendant’s delinquency in rent, is not disputed between the parties; or (e) the entire purport of pleadings as a whole may be acknowledged by taking into account the arguments in the evidence No. 2-1 and No. 15.

According to the above facts, the lease contract of this case was lawfully terminated on the ground of the defendant's delinquency in rent, and barring any special circumstance, the defendant is obligated to deliver the above building to the plaintiff at the same time with the payment of the remaining amount calculated by deducting the amount calculated by the ratio of KRW 800,000 from KRW 25 million to KRW 1,207 to December 1, 2017, and from the completion date of delivery of the building of this case.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The Defendant asserts that the termination of the instant lease agreement on the ground of rent arrears is unlawful, since the Plaintiff did not properly use or benefit from the instant building, such as the Plaintiff’s locking with locks and the Plaintiff’s locking of electric power, and the Plaintiff failed to use or benefit from the instant building.

However, it is not sufficient to find that the Defendant was unable to use or benefit from the instant building according to the purpose stipulated in the instant lease agreement only with the entries of the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 submitted by the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to recognize it. Therefore, the Defendant’s above assertion is

B. 1 Defendant asserts that the limit of increase exceeds the limit, shall enter into an in personam lease agreement.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2017.09.06 2017가단9356

-수원지방법원 2017.09.05 2017가단13256

-창원지방법원마산지원 2020.07.09 2019가단107749

-수원지방법원평택지원 2020.06.23 2020가단150

-인천지방법원 2019.02.01 2019가단370