logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 서부지원 2017.01.20 2016가합52501
건물명도
Text

1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) deliver the buildings listed in the annex;

B. From July 1, 2016 to the date on which the extradition is completed.

Reasons

1. Indication of claim;

A. On July 15, 2015, the Plaintiff leased the attached building owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant building”) to the Defendant, 30 million won in terms of lease deposit, 30 million won in terms of rent (excluding value-added tax) monthly, and 30 million won in terms of lease period from July 15, 2015 to July 14, 2017, and the Defendant occupied and used the instant building as a wedding hall from around that time.

B. However, until November 2, 2015, the Defendant paid only 270 million won out of the lease deposit to the Plaintiff by November 2, 2015, and did not pay the remainder of 30 million won up to now. From October 15, 2015, only part of the monthly rent is paid to the Plaintiff.

In other words, the defendant paid 429 million won for the monthly rent from October 15, 2015 to November 14, 2016 (i.e., 33 million won x 13 months), which is 281 million won, and does not pay 148 million won (i.e., 420 million won - 28 billion won - 281 million won). This constitutes a monthly rent of a amount equivalent to 4.5 months, and thus, is therefore, the defendant is liable to pay the monthly rent from July 1, 2016.

C. Accordingly, the Plaintiff urged the Defendant to pay the unpaid rental deposit and monthly rent, but the Defendant did not comply therewith, and thus the lease contract is terminated by delivery of the complaint.

Therefore, since the lease contract between the original defendant was terminated on the ground of the defendant's default, the defendant is obligated to deliver the building of this case to the plaintiff and return the rent calculated by the ratio of 33 million won per month from July 1, 2016 to the day the above delivery is completed (=30 million won value added tax) or the unjust enrichment equivalent thereto.

2. Article 208 (3) 1 of the Civil Procedure Act:

arrow