(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2020.07.08 2019나48846

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2020.07.08 2019나48846

건물명도(인도)

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On February 27, 2017, the Plaintiff leased the instant real estate from D as KRW 30,000,000,000 for the lease deposit, and the lease period of KRW 24 months, and subsequently, around July 2017, leased the instant real estate to the Defendant on the 15th day of each month (hereinafter “instant sublease”).

B. From July 15, 2017 to January 15, 2019, the Defendant paid a vehicle only three times from July 15, 2017 to January 15, 2019, but did not pay a vehicle for 15 minutes until now.

C. On January 9, 2019, the Plaintiff terminated the instant sub-lease contract and sought to return the instant real estate in arrears and unjust enrichment equivalent to the overdue rent, on the ground that it was in arrears at least two occasions, and submitted the instant complaint to the instant court. The duplicate of the complaint reached the Defendant on April 10, 2019.

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, the sub-lease contract of this case was lawfully terminated by the delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case. Thus, the defendant is obligated to deliver the real estate of this case to the plaintiff, and to pay the rent of 3 million won in arrears (=200,000 won x 15 times) and the rent of 200,000 won per month from January 16, 2019 to the completion date of delivery of the real estate of this case.

B. The Defendant asserted to the effect that the instant real estate did not pay monthly rent because it did not meet the Defendant’s entire purpose, including the fact that the goods owned by the Defendant were frequently lost in the instant real estate, and that, thereafter, the Plaintiff could not respond to the Plaintiff’s claim on the ground that he did not incur approximately KRW 68,9520,000, such as direct damage, indirect damage, and consolation money, by delivering and executing the instant real estate without the Defendant’s consent.

유사 판례

-전주지방법원남원지원 2020.03.25 2019가단1375

-부산지방법원서부지원 2019.09.20 2019가단3972

-대전지방법원홍성지원 2019.11.26 2019가단32477

-대전지방법원 2020.07.01 2020가단6877