(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2017.11.23 2017가단101710

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) 서울북부지방법원 2017.11.23 2017가단101710

건물명도(인도)

Text

1. From 50,00,000 to 50,000 won, the Defendant’s real estate indicated on the attached real estate from September 1, 2017.

Reasons

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The following facts can be acknowledged in full view of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 4 and the purport of the whole pleadings.

1) On January 1, 2006, the Plaintiffs, a co-owner of the instant real estate, leased the two and three floors of the instant real estate between the Defendant and the Defendant, with a lease deposit of KRW 50 million, monthly rent of KRW 2.3 million (including value-added tax), and with a lease term of KRW 2.3 million from January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2007 (hereinafter “the instant lease”).

(2) The instant lease contract was renewed, but the term of lease extended from January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016.

3) Meanwhile, the Defendant, while operating the Institute of Public Notice in the instant real estate at present, occupied and used the fourth floor without the same title as the lease contract or loan for use, and paid the Plaintiffs unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent accrued until August 31, 2017. (B) According to the fact of recognition as above, the instant lease contract has expired on December 31, 2016, and thus, the Defendant is obliged to deliver the said real estate from the Plaintiffs at the same time to the Plaintiff at the same time, as the amount calculated by deducting the overdue taxes and public charges regarding the said real estate from the amount of KRW 50,000,000 from September 1, 2017 to the completion of delivery of the said real estate, and the amount calculated by deducting the overdue taxes and public charges from the said lease contract (the reasonable amount of unjust enrichment is presumed to be the monthly rent of the instant lease contract) and the remaining amount from the Plaintiffs within the scope of recognition as to the said real estate.

8. Although the Defendant asserted that the overdue rent should be deducted from the lease deposit of this case until August 31, 2017, it was recognized as above that the Defendant paid unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent that occurred until August 31, 2017. Therefore, this part of the allegation is without merit.

In addition, the plaintiffs are from the users of the Gosiwon.

유사 판례

-부산지방법원동부지원 2016.12.14 2016가단6554

-창원지방법원 2019.06.18 2018가단14888

-광주지방법원순천지원 2019.08.28 2019가단73038

-서울남부지방법원 2017.11.23 2017가단241554

-수원지방법원 2017.08.31 2016나65152