(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.07.17 2018나69006

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 2019.07.17 2018나69006

부당이득금반환

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. The assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Defendant’s father or the Defendant provided KRW 100,00 per month for the co-user fee while leasing the three floors of the Seoul Dongjak-gu Seoul Building (hereinafter “instant real estate”). During the lease period, the Plaintiff did not reach the above co-user fee, such as electricity, water supply, septic tank, and environmental improvement charges that the Plaintiff should bear.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to return 5,572,100 won from the joint use fee paid by the plaintiff to the plaintiff after deducting the electricity tax to be actually borne by the plaintiff and the delay damages therefor as unjust enrichment.

B. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the evidence Nos. 1 through 6, the Plaintiff or the Plaintiff’s ASEAN stated the following as a whole: (a) the Plaintiff or the Plaintiff’s ASEAN, his father, determined the instant real estate as KRW 15,00,000, monthly rent of KRW 1200,000 on May 19, 2010; and (b) the lease contract was concluded again or implicitly renewed until May 2018 (it appears that the Defendant succeeded to the lessor status after February 2015 of the death of E); (c) however, the lease contract made on May 19, 2010 and the lease contract made on May 2014 on the lease contract made on or around May 2014, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff, while leasing the instant real estate, agreed to pay KRW 10,000,000 per month as management fees for common areas.

Therefore, even if the amount of electricity, water, etc. actually borne by the Plaintiff is smaller than the agreed official management fees, it is difficult to view that the difference between the amount of the difference between the official management fees received by the Defendant and the expenses actually incurred pursuant to the agreement was acquired without any legal cause. Therefore, the Plaintiff’

2. The plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.

유사 판례

-전주지방법원 2019.09.04 2019가단4405

-광주고등법원 2016.09.02 2015나2781

-인천지방법원 2018.10.19 2017가단207924

-서울서부지방법원 2016.12.15 2016가단221194

-수원지방법원성남지원 2014.06.25 2013가단25926