(영문) 의정부지방법원고양지원 2016.02.19 2015가단21847

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) 의정부지방법원고양지원 2016.02.19 2015가단21847

건물명도

Text

1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) deliver each real estate listed in the separate sheet;

B. From June 11, 2015, the above-mentioned A

(b).

Reasons

On May 10, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant for each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant real estate”) with regard to each of the instant real estate (hereinafter referred to as “instant real estate”). From May 10, 2013 to May 10, 2015, the management fees and public charges shall be separately imposed; Provided, That the real estate listed in paragraph (1) of the same list shall be KRW 40 million, monthly rent of KRW 1.7 million, and the real estate listed in paragraph (2) of the same list shall be leased at KRW 5 million, monthly rent of KRW 200,00 (excluding value-added tax) and KRW 30,000 (hereinafter referred to as “instant contract”). Upon full view of the fact that the Plaintiff entered into a contract of this case into a lease agreement with the Defendant for each of the instant real estate (hereinafter referred to as “instant real estate”), the Defendant is deemed to have engaged in restaurant business as it occupied each of the instant real estate, for at least 270,000,000,000 won.

According to the above facts, the contract of this case was lawfully terminated.

Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to deliver each of the instant real estate to the Plaintiff, and to pay the amount at the rate of KRW 2,090,000 per month from June 11, 2015 to the completion of delivery of each of the instant real estate as sought by the Plaintiff due to unjust enrichment return.

In regard to this, the Defendant initially leased each of the instant real estate on or around March 201, and the instant contract constitutes a re-contract. However, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff promised a long-term lease on the grounds that the rent was not good even if the rent was overdue at the time of the re-contract, but there was no evidence to acknowledge it.

유사 판례

-대구지방법원 2017.01.12 2016가합3137

-의정부지방법원고양지원 2015.07.22 2015가단9243

-인천지방법원 2016.06.15 2015가단240736

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.08.27 2014가단147204

-수원지방법원안산지원 2019.10.16 2019가단58349