(영문) 의정부지방법원 2015.02.06 2014가단32168

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) 의정부지방법원 2015.02.06 2014가단32168

건물인동 등

Text

1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

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

B. From July 1, 2014, the above real estate.

Reasons

1. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire pleadings as to the cause of the claim Gap's evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the defendant on June 23, 2008, stipulating that the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as "the building of this case") owned by the plaintiff shall be leased without a lease deposit, and the lease period shall be from July 1, 2008 to June 30, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as "the lease agreement of this case"). immediately thereafter, the defendant sublets part of the building of this case among the possession of the building of this case by delivery from the plaintiff to D and E. Meanwhile, the plaintiff requested the defendant to return the building of this case by June 30, 2013 when the defendant notified the defendant that he had no intention to renew the lease of this case on February 28, 2013, but the defendant could occupy the building of this case without complying with the request.

Therefore, according to the above facts, since the lease contract of this case was terminated on June 30, 2013 due to the expiration of the lease term, the defendant is obligated to deliver the building of this case to the plaintiff, and the defendant is obligated to pay unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent that has been acquired by occupying and using the building of this case.

Furthermore, we examine the specific amount of unjust enrichment to be returned by the Defendant, as seen earlier, the fact that the annual rent for the instant building is 4 million won is recognized, and thereafter, it is confirmed that the subsequent rent is the same amount. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay unjust enrichment calculated by the ratio of KRW 4 million per annum from July 1, 2014 to the date on which delivery of the instant building is completed, as sought by the Plaintiff.

2. The Defendant’s assertion is to renew the instant lease agreement in a case where the new transport project, which was being promoted on the site, etc. of the instant building at the time of the instant lease agreement, is indefinitely postponed or revoked.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2014.12.18 2014가단16157

-대전지방법원천안지원 2016.07.12 2015가단109320

-울산지방법원 2015.07.15 2014나7339

-창원지방법원 2015.07.14 2014가단27992

-제주지방법원 2016.11.22 2016가단9413