logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.10.14 2014가단266525
건물인도등
Text

1. The Plaintiff:

A. The Defendant delivers Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 2 stories 52.31㎡; and

B. 3,300,000 won and July 9, 2015

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On June 9, 2010, the Plaintiff leased (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) the lease deposit amount of KRW 20,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 1,000,000, and the lease period from June 9, 2010 to June 9, 2012, the Plaintiff leased (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

Article 4 of the instant lease agreement provides that a lessor may terminate the instant lease agreement if the lessee fails to pay a rent on at least two occasions.

B. On June 9, 2012, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to renew the first lease agreement and increase the monthly rent to KRW 1,100,000. Since then, around June 9, 2014, the Plaintiff and the Defendant continued to renew the lease agreement after increasing the monthly rent to KRW 1,200,000.

C. From October 2013 to December 2013, the Defendant delayed to pay a total of KRW 3,300,000,000 in monthly rent for three months from October 2013, and thereafter, from October 2014 to December 2014, the Defendant delayed to pay a total of KRW 6,70,000, such as delinquency of a total of KRW 3,400,000 in monthly rent from October 2014. On December 8, 2014, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the termination of the instant lease agreement on the ground of the delayed rent by mail.

As a result of the Defendant’s payment of partial arrears to the Plaintiff until July 8, 2015, the monthly rent of KRW 3,300,000 is paid by the Defendant, and there is no dispute between the parties as to the fact that the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff KRW 1,20,000 per month as the amount of unjust enrichment equivalent to the previous rent from July 9, 2015.

On the other hand, the defendant is operating the Chinese house in the commercial building of this case by the closing date of pleadings of this case.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to Gap evidence 5 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of determination, the instant lease agreement is a lessee’s notification of termination as of December 8, 2014, on the ground that the Defendant’s two or more years of rent is a lessee.

arrow