logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 춘천지방법원속초지원 2015.11.10 2014가단3759
임차료
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 54,165,30 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from August 1, 2015 to November 10, 2015.

Reasons

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

(a) The facts subsequent to the facts of recognition may be found either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the entries in Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 to 5 and the whole purport of the pleadings.

1) On February 4, 2004, the Plaintiff and the Defendant used the commercial building located in the Silsi City C (hereinafter “instant building”) owned by the Plaintiff.

(B) A deposit amount of KRW 40,000,000, facility and equipment expenses of KRW 8,000,000, and rent of KRW 2,200,000 (However, since January 2009, the rent portion was changed to KRW 2,060,000.

2) The term “instant lease agreement” under the terms and conditions that a lease agreement shall be determined and leased (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

(2) The Defendant paid a total of KRW 33,384,670 from November 201 to July 2015 (the Plaintiff paid KRW 33,924,670 to the Defendant’s total of KRW 33,924,670 from the preparatory document, but this is an error in the calculation).

3) The Plaintiff, upon filing an application for modification of the purport and cause of the instant lease agreement, failed to pay two or more rents under the instant lease agreement on February 12, 2015, and accordingly, declared the Defendant to terminate the instant lease agreement, and the said application reached May 15, 2015. (B) According to the foregoing findings, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 33,384,670,000, which is the remainder after deducting the Defendant’s payment of KRW 33,384,670, and KRW 42 months from May 15, 2015 upon termination of the instant lease agreement from November 201 to May 15, 2015 (i) KRW 87,50,500,000 (i) KRW 2,060,0000 x 42-15 days).

2. The Plaintiff sought unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent from the Defendant’s delivery of the instant building to the Plaintiff until the end of July 2015, but the Defendant continued to conduct business in the instant building after May 15, 2015 when the instant lease contract was terminated.

arrow