beta
(영문) 대전지방법원 2017.04.27 2016가단216387

건물인도 등

Text

1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) Attached drawings (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), and (9);

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On October 18, 2014, the Plaintiff, the owner of the instant housing, concluded a lease agreement by setting the deposit amount of KRW 3,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 200,000 (prepaid on October 19, 2018), and the term of lease as of October 17, 2018.

B. C and the Defendant resided in the instant housing from the time of the conclusion of the aforementioned lease agreement, but did not pay monthly rent from August 2015 to the date of August, 2015, and did not pay the electric rent of KRW 1,381,130 on the instant housing as of July 2016, and the Plaintiff paid it on November 17, 2016 to the Korea Electric Power Corporation.

[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence A1 to 4, Evidence A7, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. Furthermore, the above facts are as follows: (a) the Plaintiff notified C of the termination of the lease agreement by serving the instant complaint (service date on October 12, 2016); (b) on December 23, 2016, there was a decision of recommending settlement between C and the Plaintiff to confirm that the lease agreement was terminated; and (c) the said decision of recommending settlement became final and conclusive as it is, the Defendant did not have the right to occupy and use the instant house.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant house to the Plaintiff.

(2) On December 23, 2016, there was a decision to recommend settlement between C and the Plaintiff to verify that the amount of KRW 3,000,000 of the lease deposit was fully deducted from the unpaid rent for the instant house. Furthermore, the said decision to recommend settlement became final and conclusive, it is appropriate to deem that the sum of the overdue rent for the period from August 18, 2015 to November 17, 2016 was paid in full by deducting the amount of KRW 3,00,000 from the lease deposit.

Therefore, the Defendant is deemed to have obtained unjust enrichment equivalent to monthly rent by occupying the instant house from November 18, 2016, where all of the lease deposit remains deducted after the termination of the lease contract regarding the instant house.