(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2019.05.22 2018나3719

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 2019.05.22 2018나3719

건물명도 등

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 September 10, 2015, the Plaintiff leased real estate stated in the attached Form (hereinafter “instant housing”) to the Defendant on a fixed date as the lease deposit amount of KRW 5 million, monthly rent of KRW 270,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 270,000, and monthly rent of KRW 10,000.

B. The Defendant, while residing in the instant housing, paid the tea to May 2016, but did not pay the tea from June 2016.

C. On November 9, 2017, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the termination of the lease contract.

The defendant occupies the house of this case by the closing date of pleadings of this case and uses and benefits it.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts of the determination as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount equivalent to the rent calculated by the ratio of KRW 2.7 million per month from November 11, 2017 to the completion date of the delivery of the instant house as unjust enrichment, barring special circumstances. The Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount equivalent to the rent calculated by the ratio of KRW 2.7 million per month from June 201 to November 2017, which was the sum of the rent accrued from June 2016 to the amount of KRW 4.86 million (2.7 million x 18 months).

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The Defendant asserts that since November 2015, the Plaintiff caused a gate and tent, and notified the Plaintiff thereof, the Plaintiff did not perform his/her duty as a lessor because it did not repair it. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim for unjust enrichment equivalent to the Plaintiff’s rent and rent is unreasonable.

B. Since the duty of a lessor to allow a lessee to use and benefit from an object in a lease agreement and the duty of a lessee to pay rent for a leased object are mutually corresponding to each other, in a case where a lessee is unable to use the object at all due to a lessor’s failure to perform the repair duty for the object, the lessee may refuse to pay the whole rent, but is due to nonperformance of the repair duty.

유사 판례

-서울북부지방법원 2020.06.17 2020가단2219

-울산지방법원 2015.05.20 2014가단34392

-대구지방법원영덕지원 2016.03.22 2015가단4929

-수원지방법원 2018.01.11 2017나54012

-대전지방법원 2017.05.25 2016가단29699