logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2019.04.03 2018가단232434
건물인도 등 청구의 소
Text

1. The Defendants are to the Plaintiff:

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

(b) be jointly and severally 90,500,000; and

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On August 20, 2014, D leased the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) to Defendant B by setting the lease deposit up to KRW 25 million, monthly rent of KRW 2750,000 (including value-added tax), and the lease term up to May 20, 2015 (hereinafter “instant lease contract”), and Defendant C guaranteed the lessee’s obligations under the instant contract.

B. Defendant C operated a restaurant in the instant real estate, and did not pay the monthly rent since 2015.

C. D died on March 10, 2015, and the Plaintiff inherited the instant real estate and succeeded to the lessor’s status.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The copy of the complaint containing an expression of intent to terminate the instant contract on the basis of rent for more than three years was served on the Defendants, and the instant contract was lawfully terminated in accordance with Article 10-8 of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act.

Therefore, the Defendants shall deliver the instant real estate to the Plaintiff, and the Defendants shall jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 90.5 million in arrears (= KRW 115.5 million in arrears from January 2015 to June 2018 (=2.75 million in lease deposit x 42 months) - the lease deposit 25 million in lease deposit) and 15% in delay from August 18, 2018 to the date of full payment following the delivery of the copy of the instant complaint to the date of full payment. The Defendants are obligated to return unjust enrichment equivalent to the amount of KRW 2.75 million in arrears calculated from June 20, 2018 to the date of completion of the delivery of the instant real estate.

B. As to the Defendants’ assertion, the Defendants asserted that the cost KRW 90 million should be reimbursed as beneficial cost when newly installing the roof, floor, toilet, etc. of the instant real estate in which the worn-out factory building was located.

According to the statements or images of the evidence Nos. 2 through 4, the Defendants invested expenses.

arrow