logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2014.10.01 2012가단15906
건물명도 등
Text

1. The defendant,

A. Upon receiving KRW 15,00,000 from the Plaintiff, real estate in the attached Table shall be paid to the Plaintiff at the same time.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On March 11, 2011, the Plaintiff leased the instant building to the Defendant from March 11, 201 to April 1, 2012, with the lease deposit of KRW 1.5 million, monthly rent of KRW 240,00 (payment delay of KRW 20 per annum), management expenses (payment delay of KRW 20% per annum), KRW 20,000 per annum (payment delay of delayed delay of KRW 8800 per annum), and the lease period from April 2, 201 to April 1, 2012.

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). B.

On April 1, 2012, the Defendant removed the instant building from the instant building on April 20, 2012 after completing the lease registration on April 3, 2012, but still has the key.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, Eul evidence No. 15, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. (1) According to the above facts, the instant lease agreement was terminated on April 1, 2012, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff.

(2) On this ground, the Defendant asserts that the above room delivery obligation should be performed simultaneously with the refund of the lease deposit of KRW 15 million. Thus, the Defendant’s payment of the lease deposit of KRW 15 million to the Plaintiff does not conflict between the parties, and thus, the Plaintiff is obligated to refund the lease deposit of KRW 1.5 million to the Defendant. The Plaintiff’s repayment obligation of the lease deposit of KRW 1.5 million to the Defendant is related to the Defendant’s simultaneous performance of the duty of delivery of the building of this case. Therefore, the above argument by the Defendant

(3) In addition, the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff should pay 20% of the annual damages for delay for the lease deposit of 1.5 million won. Thus, the Plaintiff’s obligation to refund the lease deposit and the Defendant’s obligation to deliver the room is concurrently performed, and if the Plaintiff fails to perform the above obligation, damages for delay does not accrue. Therefore, the Defendant’s above assertion is without merit.

B. The Plaintiff determined on the claim for return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent.

arrow