logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2016.12.09 2016가단136553
약정금
Text

1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s main claim is dismissed.

2. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff)

(a) annex.

Reasons

Facts of recognition

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the statements and arguments in Gap 1-1, 1-2, and Eul 1-6, the plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the defendant on December 16, 2013, with the effect that the plaintiff paid the above lease deposit to the defendant during the period from December 16, 2013 to December 15, 2013 and received the delivery of the above lease deposit by paying the lease deposit to the defendant for KRW 1,2,3,4,5,000 (hereinafter referred to as the "instant store") of part 49.5 square meters in the ship (a) connected each point in sequence from the defendant among the real estate 1st floor listed in the attached Table 1 list, the lease deposit is KRW 15 million, the monthly rent is KRW 9,00,000 (payment at the end of each month), and the fact that the plaintiff and the defendant agreed to pay the above lease deposit to the plaintiff on March 16, 2014 to KRW 36,0600.

According to the above fact of finding the counterclaim claim, since the above lease contract was lawfully terminated according to the defendant's right to terminate due to the delay in the rent of the plaintiff, the plaintiff is obligated to deliver the store of this case to the defendant due to its restitution.

In addition, the Plaintiff is a person who received both rent, management fee, and unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent by June 15, 2016. As such, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay the Defendant unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent of 1,276,000 won per month from June 16, 2016 to the completion date of delivery of the instant store (1,16,000 won of monthly rent of KRW 1,100,000), as the Defendant’s request, at the rate of KRW 1,276,000 per month.

As to this, the plaintiff paid the monthly rent that was ambiguous after the defendant's notice of termination, the above lease contract was implicitly renewed.

arrow