beta
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2017.08.31 2017가단207799

건물명도(인도)

Text

1. The Defendants are based on Section 1, Section 2, Section 3, Section 4, Section 5, 6, and Section 1, among the second floor of the building listed in the attached list.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On March 15, 2014, the Plaintiff was the owner of a drawing shop (hereinafter “instant store”) among the buildings listed in the attached list, and leased the instant store to Defendant B by setting the lease period from March 15, 2014 to March 14, 2015, with the rent of KRW 2,200,000 (including value-added tax, and payment on March 15, 2014), and the lease period from March 15, 2014 to March 14, 2015.

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). B.

The Defendants together possess the instant store and operate “D”.

C. From the beginning of April 2016, Defendant B did not pay rent. Accordingly, the Plaintiff notified Defendant B of the termination of the instant lease agreement on April 6, 2016, on the ground that the rent overdue is overdue, and the same year.

7. 27. Re-notification of the same content.

Defendant B paid the Plaintiff the difference between July 14, 2016 and July 2016.

[Reasons for Recognition] Defendant B: Each entry in the evidence of Nos. 1 through 8, as a whole, Defendant C: deemed as confession

2. Determination

A. Defendant B raised a defense to the effect that the Plaintiff’s filing of the instant lawsuit to the instant court is unlawful, since the judgment on the principal safety defense by Defendant B does not have any legitimate territorial jurisdiction in this court.

On the other hand, the instant lawsuit includes a claim for return of unjust enrichment, which can be brought to the court having jurisdiction over the place of obligation as a matter of property right (Article 8 of the Civil Procedure Act). The claim for return of unjust enrichment is a claim for return of unjust enrichment, and the obligee’s domicile is a place of obligation. Thus, the instant lawsuit is also under the territorial jurisdiction of this court, which

The above defendant's defense of safety is without merit.

B. According to the facts acknowledged prior to the determination as to the cause of the claim, since the instant lease agreement was terminated and terminated as the leased body of Defendant B, the Defendants deliver the instant store to the Plaintiff, and Defendant B delivers the instant store from July 15, 2016 to the completion date of delivery of the instant store. The rent or rent calculated at the rate of KRW 2,200,000 per month from July 15, 2016 to the completion date of delivery of the instant store.