logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.05.11 2017가단5157252
건물명도(인도)
Text

1. The Defendant shall deliver to the Plaintiff real estate of 812.22 square meters (in the register: 378.29 square meters on the register) recorded in the attached list, and on July 2017.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On May 30, 2014, the Defendant leased the instant real estate by setting the deposit of KRW 140,00,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 18,370,00, and the lease term of KRW 31, 2017.

B. On July 27, 2016, the Plaintiff purchased the instant real estate from C on July 27, 2016 and completed the registration of ownership transfer on September 26, 2016, and decided to succeed to the lessor’s status as it is.

C. From January 2017, the Plaintiff’s content-certified mail was served on the Defendant on June 30, 2017, to the effect that the said lease contract will be terminated on the grounds of the delinquency in monthly rent.

[Evidence] Each description of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4

2. According to the facts of the above recognition, the above lease contract is deemed terminated on June 30, 2017 according to the Plaintiff’s declaration of intent due to the Defendant’s failure to pay a half-month amount as stipulated in Article 4 of the above lease contract. Thus, the Defendant is obliged to deliver the instant real estate to the Plaintiff, and pay the Plaintiff money in proportion to KRW 18,370,000 per month from July 1, 2017 to the completion date of its delivery.

As of March 31, 2018, the Defendant asserted that the remainder of KRW 135,550,000 after deducting deposit of KRW 140,00,000 from the monthly overdue rent of KRW 275,550,000 as of March 31, 201, was fully repaid until April 11, 2018. Thus, according to the evidence Nos. 9, the Defendant is aware of such repayment, but the obligation to deliver and return unjust enrichment upon the termination of the lease is not extinguished on the ground that the Defendant already repaid the overdue rent after the termination of the lease.

3. As such, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as there is no ground.

arrow