logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2016.06.30 2016가단1164
건물명도
Text

1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) deliver the buildings listed in the separate sheet;

B. India from June 20, 2016

Reasons

Facts of recognition

On June 30, 2015, the Plaintiff leased the instant apartment to the Defendant at the rate of KRW 20 million, KRW 1.2 million per month, KRW 1.2 million per month, the lease term from July 20, 2015 to July 19, 2017, and KRW 2% per month in arrears.

The defendant does not pay the rent from October 20, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] The plaintiff may terminate the lease contract, as the defendant did not pay more than 2 times since the statement of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 4 (including the number of branch numbers) and the purport of the whole argument.

The fact that the duplicate of the complaint of this case stating the plaintiff's declaration of termination was delivered to the defendant on April 7, 2016 is clear, and the lease contract was lawfully terminated on the above date.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant apartment to the Plaintiff.

② The Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent or rent of KRW 1.2 million per month from October 20, 2015 to May 20, 2016, as well as the amount of money for each corresponding month, at the rate of 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act, from the date following the due date of the payment (from January 21 to June 30, 2016) to the date of the determination that it is reasonable to dispute over the scope of the Defendant’s obligation to perform, and at the rate of 20% per annum as claimed by the Plaintiff within the agreed rate, from the next day to the date of full payment.

[Plaintiff] The Plaintiff claimed damages for delay as stated in the purport of the claim against KRW 9.6 million (i.e., KRW 1.2 million x 8 months). However, the Plaintiff’s assertion on damages for delay exceeding the above scope of recognition cannot be acknowledged. ③ The Defendant is obliged to pay to the Plaintiff unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent of KRW 1.2 million per month from June 20, 2016 to the completion date of delivery of the instant apartment from June 2016.

The plaintiff sought unjust enrichment equivalent to rent from May 21, 2016.

(2) However, on May 20, 2016, 120,000 won for prepaid payments recognized in the paragraph.

arrow