(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2015.09.22 2015가단18405

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) 서울동부지방법원 2015.09.22 2015가단18405

건물명도등

Text

1. The defendant is against the plaintiffs:

A. Of the first floor of the Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City D ground, the display of drawings in the attached Form A, B, C, D, and A.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On April 7, 2010, the Plaintiffs leased the lease deposit amount of KRW 5 million for the leased deposit, KRW 90,000 for monthly rent (excluding value-added tax), KRW 50,00 for management expenses, and the lease period from April 30, 2010 to April 29, 2012 for the instant lease contract was renewed after the following: (a) the indication of the drawings in the attached sheet among the buildings on the first floor in Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, which are owned by the Plaintiffs to the Defendant (hereinafter “instant lease”); and (b) the lease contract in this case was renewed.

B. However, the Defendant delayed the payment of monthly rent from September 1, 2014, and the Plaintiffs terminated the instant lease contract to the Defendant around December 23, 2014.

[Grounds for Recognition: Entry of Evidence No. 1-5 No. 1-1-5 and the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. According to the facts of the above recognition, since the lease contract of this case was lawfully terminated by the plaintiffs' declaration of termination due to the defendant's declaration of termination due to overdue delay, the defendant is obligated to deliver the building of this case to the plaintiffs, and to pay unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent of 1,440,000 won per month from May 1, 2015 to the completion date of delivery of the building of this case (50,000 won of value-added tax of KRW 90,000,000,000).

(1) The plaintiffs sought to transfer the building of this case to the defendant, and the amount of money calculated by applying the ratio of 1040,000 won per month from May 1, 2015 to 1040,000 won. However, the plaintiffs can seek unjust enrichment from the defendant's possession and use until the completion date of delivery of the building of this case, which is the period of possession and use. Thus, the plaintiffs' claim for unjust enrichment is justified within the scope of the above recognition). 3. Thus, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as it is so decided as per Disposition.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원안양지원 2015.07.02 2014가단20408

-대구지방법원서부지원 2020.10.06 2020가단56671

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.03.18 2015가단169492

-창원지방법원 2016.05.17 2015가단20332

-전주지방법원 2017.02.08 2016가단22075