(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.05.14 2014가단145116

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 2015.05.14 2014가단145116

건물명도 등

Text

1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) The indication of the attached Form No. 1, 2, 3, of the same land and the same land in the 2,007 square meters, Jeon Chang-gun, Jeon Chang-gun.

Reasons

1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of pleadings as to the cause of the claim Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 6 (including additional numbers), the fact that the land and the building in this case are owned by the plaintiff, and the defendant can recognize the fact that the real estate management consignment agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant on the ten parcels, including the land in this case, has expired on June 30, 2014, even after the expiration of the expiry date.

Therefore, barring special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant land and building to the Plaintiff and to pay unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent from July 1, 2014 to the completion date of delivery of the instant land and building.

The amount equivalent to the rent for the instant land and buildings shall be deemed KRW 250,000 per month in light of various circumstances, including the fact that the Defendant alleged that the instant building was leased at KRW 250,000 per month, that the Defendant also argued that the rent for the land for the land adjacent to the instant land would not exceed KRW 300,000 per annum, and that the Plaintiff did not file an application for appraisal, etc.

2. The Defendant alleged that the instant building was owned by the Defendant, and that, around July 2009, the lease agreement for the ownership of the instant building was concluded with the original and the Defendant for the renewal of the lease agreement. However, the Defendant’s assertion is insufficient to accept the Defendant’s assertion on the following grounds: (a) the written evidence No. 4 and the witness evidence Nos. 1, 5, and 6-1, 2, and 7, which correspond to the fact that the instant building was owned by the Defendant or the lease agreement on the instant land was concluded; and (b) the written evidence No. 1, 5, and 6-1, 2, and 7, which correspond to the fact that the instant building was concluded.

3. In conclusion, the Defendant delivered the instant land and building to the Plaintiff and paid the amount calculated by applying the rate of KRW 250,000 per month from July 1, 2014 to the completion date of delivery of the instant land and building.

유사 판례

-서울북부지방법원 2015.10.07 2015가단17224

-대구지방법원서부지원 2016.04.12 2015가단21251

-의정부지방법원고양지원 2017.09.15 2016가단21431

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.04.12 2017가단5004877

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.05.16 2017가단80135