logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2018.02.06 2017가단535961
건물명도 등
Text

1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)

A. From 10,400,000 to 11, 2017, from the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)

Reasons

The main lawsuit and counterclaim are also examined.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On January 17, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant, setting the term of lease as KRW 50,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 1,60,000 (after January 10, 201), from February 10, 2017 to February 9, 2019, with the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). B.

On March 10, 2017, the Defendant paid monthly rent of KRW 1,600,000 to the Plaintiff on March 10, 2017.

C. On July 31, 2017, the Plaintiff returned the deposit amount of KRW 30,000,000 to the Defendant in advance. D.

On September 5, 2017, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant that the instant lease contract was terminated on the ground of the Defendant’s delinquency in rent.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence 1, 2, Gap evidence 4, Gap evidence 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff seeking the delivery of the instant real estate to the Defendant on the ground that the lease contract of this case was terminated, and the Defendant cannot deliver the instant real estate as long as the lease deposit was not refunded.

Since the duty to return the leased object and the duty to return the remainder of the deposit, which deducted the lessor from the lessor’s default due to the termination of a lease agreement, is in a simultaneous performance relationship, if the lessee has continuously occupied the leased building by exercising his/her right of defense of simultaneous performance even after the termination of the lease agreement, the lessee’s possession of the building cannot be deemed an illegal possession, but if there exists any benefit arising therefrom, it shall be returned as unjust enrichment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Da45202, 45219, Apr. 14, 1992). In such case, it is reasonable to deem that the benefit earned by the lessee is equivalent to the rent.

Examining the above facts in light of these legal principles, the instant lease agreement is legitimate as the Defendant’s delinquency in payment.

arrow