logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 부천지원 2018.01.16 2017가단108136
건물명도(인도)
Text

1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) deliver the real estate listed in the separate sheet;

(b) KRW 24,090,000 and as regards it, 24,000.

Reasons

1. On December 21, 2015, the Plaintiff determined real estate listed in the attached list (hereinafter “instant building”) to the Defendant as KRW 110,00,000 for the term of lease from January 4, 2016 to January 3, 2018, and the first rent due to a special contract is paid in advance, and the first rent is determined to be paid in advance for three months after the two months (hereinafter “instant lease contract”), and the rent is not paid by the Defendant from January 4, 2016 to November 3, 2017. The Plaintiff is not entitled to dispute over the purpose of the lease agreement between the Defendant and the entire parties to the instant building during the period from February 16, 2016 to January 3, 2016, or by adding up the rent for advance payment under the said special agreement and the rent for subsequent arrears, or by notifying the Defendant of the purport of the termination of the lease agreement between the Defendant and the entire parties to the instant building during the period from March 4, 2016.

According to the above facts, the lease contract of this case was lawfully terminated according to the plaintiff's notice of termination on the ground of delinquency in the rent of the defendant, barring any special circumstance, the defendant is obligated to deliver the building of this case to the plaintiff, and to return unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent calculated at the rate of 15 percent per annum from September 27, 2017 to the day of complete payment, as requested by the plaintiff, as requested by the plaintiff, from September 27, 2017, the day following the delivery of the copy of the application for alteration of the purport of the claim of this case and the cause of the claim of this case to November 3, 2017.

2. The Defendant did not use and benefit from the instant building following the conclusion of the instant lease agreement by the Defendant’s dual lease of the instant building to the Kimpo-gun Co., Ltd.

arrow