logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2017.01.20 2016나7389
임료 등
Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the amount ordered to be paid below shall be cancelled.

Reasons

On January 13, 1983, the Plaintiff completed the ownership transfer registration on January 12, 1983 with respect to 1/3 shares of each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each real estate of this case”) on January 13, 1983.

The Plaintiff, C, and D set forth and leased each of the instant real estate to the Defendant as KRW 1,00,000 monthly rent.

The defendant has used each of the real estate of this case for about twenty years.

[Ground] In light of the facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, and evidence Nos. 1 to 2-1, and the purport of the whole pleadings, the defendant is obligated to pay 240,000,000 won (=1,00,000 won x 12 months x 20 years) out of the total rent of each real estate of this case for about 20 years as stipulated in the above lease agreement, and delay damages for which the plaintiff seeks within the scope of 80,00,000 won (20 years) equivalent to 1/3 of the total rent of each real estate of this case.

Since the Defendant leased each of the instant real estate from the Plaintiff, etc. 20 years prior to the lease of approximately 20 years ago, the Defendant paid D rent without delay to C, and requested the Plaintiff to pay it directly from around 3 years ago, and kept it separately. The Defendant asserted that the amount is about KRW 12,00,000,000. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge the Defendant’s payment of the said rent, and the Defendant’s above assertion is without merit.

The Defendant’s claim on the Defendant’s ground of extinctive prescription is subject to a short-term extinctive prescription of three years, and the Plaintiff’s claim for rent arising before three years, retroactively from December 9, 2015, which was the date of filing the instant lawsuit, was extinguished by the extinctive prescription of all the Plaintiff’s claim for rent that occurred before three years.

Judgment

Since the Plaintiff is seeking the payment of rent based on the lease agreement on each real estate of this case, pursuant to Article 163 subparag. 1 of the Civil Act, the three-year short-term extinctive prescription is applied to the Plaintiff’s rent claim. The instant lawsuit is filed on December 9, 2015.

arrow