(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2017.05.18 2016나1124

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) 서울서부지방법원 2017.05.18 2016나1124

건물명도등

Text

1. The defendant-Counterclaim plaintiff that has been changed in exchange at the trial shall be dismissed;

2. After an appeal is filed.

Reasons

1. In the first instance court’s trial scope, the Plaintiff sought delivery of part (a) of the portion of 230.98 square meters in the ship (hereinafter “instant real estate”) connected each point in sequence with the real estate listed in the attached Table No. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1 in the main lawsuit, and the Defendant sought payment of the agreed amount as a counterclaim. The court of first instance partly accepted the Plaintiff’s claim for the main lawsuit and dismissed the Defendant’s claim for the counterclaim.

Accordingly, since the defendant appealed only against the counterclaim part and then exchangedly changed the purport of the counterclaim to seek lease deposit and unjust enrichment, the subject of the judgment by this court is limited to the part of the amended counterclaim claim.

2. Basic facts

A. On June 1, 2003, the Plaintiff leased the instant real estate to the Defendant as KRW 20,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 400,000, and period of lease from June 1, 2003 to May 31, 2005.

B. Around that time, the Defendant paid the above lease deposit to the Plaintiff, and operated and used the childcare center upon delivery of the instant real estate.

Even after the expiration of the initial lease term, the lease contract has been partially changed and has been renewed several times.

C. While the Defendant was in arrears in paying the rent under the lease agreement of the instant real estate, on March 20, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking the delivery of the instant real estate and the payment of rent or unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent, calculated at the rate of KRW 1,00,000 per month from August 1, 2011 to the completion date of delivery of the said real estate, as the Seoul Western District Court 201Da12071, the Plaintiff terminated the lease agreement with the Defendant as Seoul Western District Court 201Da12071.

In this regard, the defendant asserts that the child-care center is liable to compensate for damages caused by the inundation due to the defect of the water meter installed by the plaintiff during the term of lease, and that the plaintiff is liable to compensate for the damages caused by the inundation.

유사 판례

-서울서부지방법원 2016.02.02 2015가단11659

-춘천지방법원영월지원 2016.11.16 2016가단1262

-창원지방법원통영지원 2017.05.30 2016가단6346

-광주지방법원순천지원 2019.08.13 2019가단2838

-서울남부지방법원 2019.04.30 2018가단23876