(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2019.11.26 2019가단10036

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2019.11.26 2019가단10036

건물명도

Text

1. The Defendant shall deliver to the Plaintiff the 4th floor D heading 45.18 square meters of the building indicated in the attached list, and the KRW 3,900,000 and July 1, 2019.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On May 1, 2018, the Plaintiff leased a lease deposit of KRW 10,00,000,000 from May 30, 2018 to May 29, 2020, the lease deposit was set at KRW 650,000 from May 30, 2018 to May 29, 2020 (hereinafter “instant lease contract”), and the Defendant had resided in the instant building from around that time.

B. From January 2019, the Defendant is in arrears regarding the monthly rent from January 201 to the present.

C. For this reason, a duplicate of the instant complaint containing the Plaintiff’s declaration of intent to terminate the instant lease agreement reaches the Defendant on July 16, 2019.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts, the lease contract of this case was lawfully terminated by the Plaintiff’s declaration of termination on the ground of more than two years of delay.

Therefore, the Defendant, a lessee, is obligated to deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff as the lessor. From January 1, 2019 to June 2019, the Defendant is obligated to pay the lessor a total of KRW 3,900,000 in arrears (i.e., KRW 650,000 per month x 6 months) and the following day from July 1, 2019 to the completion of delivery of the said building. The Defendant is obligated to pay a monthly rent or unjust enrichment equivalent to KRW 650,00 per month.

As to this, the Defendant asserted to the effect that there was a justifiable reason to refuse the payment of the rent, on the grounds that the Plaintiff’s visit to get paid the rent, etc., and there was an obstacle to the use of and benefit from the instant building. However, there was no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant was unable to use and benefit from the instant building because the Plaintiff failed to perform its duty to maintain the status of allowing use of and benefit from the instant building. Therefore, the Defendant’s allegation is rejected.

3. The plaintiff's claim is justified.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2020.10.08 2020나56742

-수원지방법원평택지원 2020.11.10 2020가단55839

-대구지방법원김천지원 2020.02.04 2019가단36208

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.02.24 2015가단5089010