본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
서울고등법원 2017.01.12 2016나2046008

1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified following the plaintiff's amendment of the claim at the trial.

The defendant.


1. Basic facts

A. On December 3, 2013, the Defendant leased the land indicated in the purport of the claim (hereinafter “instant land”) from D, the father of the Plaintiff, KRW 13,00,000, and KRW 1,500,000 per month of rent (hereinafter “instant lease contract”) (hereinafter “instant lease contract”), and was handed over around that time.

B. After that, D’s death on April 11, 2014, D’s registration of ownership transfer was completed on April 11, 2014 on the land of this case due to inheritance by consultation and division on April 11, 2014.

C. On May 26, 2015 and November 4, 2015, the Plaintiff sent content-certified mail to the Defendant, and the Plaintiff did not notify the Defendant of the purport that the term of lease under the instant lease agreement was extended since December 3, 2015, the expiration date of the instant lease agreement.

At present, the Defendant installed three large warehouse facilities, measurement facilities, and two container gates on the instant land, and used them for the purpose of warehouse, etc., and occupied and used the instant land.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Gap evidence 3-1, 2, Gap evidence 4-2, 3, and Gap evidence 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant lease agreement was terminated on December 3, 2015, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant land to the Plaintiff and pay the Plaintiff the amount of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent calculated at the rate of KRW 1,500,000 per month from December 3, 2015 to December 3, 2015.

B. Defendant 1) The Defendant and D promised to make the instant lease term verbally at least five years at the time of the instant lease agreement, and thus, the instant lease agreement has not yet been terminated. 2) Even if not, following the first instance judgment, the Defendant continued to transfer the amount of monthly rent from May 18, 2016 to the Plaintiff’s account after the pronouncement of the first instance judgment.