logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2018.11.30 2018가단7327
건물인도
Text

1. From 10,00,000 to 30,000 won, the Defendant shall deliver the real estate listed in the separate sheet from May 30, 2018 to the completion date.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On May 4, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant on a deposit of KRW 10,00,000, monthly rent of KRW 330,000 (payment on a deposit basis on June 30, 201), and the lease term of KRW 30,000 (payment on a deposit basis) from June 30, 2012 to June 30, 2014 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). At that time, the Defendant paid KRW 10,000,000 to the Plaintiff.

B. The above lease agreement was explicitly renewed on June 30, 2014, and the Defendant occupies and uses the instant building as of the closing date of pleadings in the instant case.

C. On July 30, 2017, the Defendant did not pay a rent, and on April 9, 2018, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a certificate that the instant lease contract will be revoked on the grounds of two or more years of delay of rent.

After the filing date of the instant lawsuit, the Defendant paid to the Plaintiff on July 6, 2018, by April 30, 2018, but did not pay any rent thereafter.

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

2. According to the allegations and the facts of the above judgment, the instant lease contract was terminated on or around April 9, 2018. As such, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff, and pay unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent of the instant building from May 30, 2018. Since the Defendant seeks to simultaneously perform the lease deposit return, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff at the same time with the remainder after deducting unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent of KRW 30,00 from May 30, 2018 to the completion date of delivery of the instant building.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the above scope of recognition, and it is reasonable to accept it, and the remaining claims are without merit.

arrow