(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.06.01 2017가단104956

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 2018.06.01 2017가단104956

건물명도 등 청구의 소

Text

1. The defendant against the plaintiffs

A. A building that received KRW 10 million from the plaintiffs at the same time as stated in the attached list.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On April 20, 2008, the Plaintiffs and the Defendant concluded a lease agreement with respect to the instant store and renewed several times, but on October 20, 2016, concluded a lease agreement with a deposit of KRW 10,000 won, monthly rent of KRW 1230,00,000, and the period of October 20, 2017.

B. The same year as August 18, 2017 by the Plaintiffs

9. The 19. notified the Defendant that the contract cannot be renewed.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, since the above lease contract was terminated upon the expiration of the period on October 20, 2017, the defendant is obligated to receive 10 million won deposit from the plaintiffs and deliver the instant store to the plaintiffs at the same time.

In addition, since the defendant still uses and benefits from the store of this case as a licensed real estate agent office even after the termination of the lease, it is obligated to return unjust enrichment equivalent to the above rent.

However, the Plaintiffs sought a return of unjust enrichment from October 21, 2017, after the expiration of the lease term, but the Defendant may assert as if the lease exists until the deposit of KRW 10,000 is returned. As such, the Defendant’s acquisition of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent ought to be deemed as from June 25, 2018, which was about eight months after the said KRW 10,000,000, from the point of view.

B. Accordingly, the defendant asserts that the plaintiffs suffered a significant loss due to the plaintiffs' non-performance of obligation not to issue the tax invoice for rent.

However, there is no evidence to prove this.

C. In addition, the defendant asserts that since the plaintiffs' refusal to enter into a lease agreement with E that they intend to become a new lessee without justifiable grounds, they deprived of opportunities to recover premiums, they should compensate for damages of KRW 30 million.

However, the statement No. 1 is insufficient to view that the defendant provided the plaintiffs with information on the premium contract until the termination of the lease.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.07.15 2015가단186725

-서울북부지방법원 2017.01.25 2016가단780

-창원지방법원 2020.12.18 2020가단109697

-서울북부지방법원 2015.02.06 2014가단118007

-서울북부지방법원 2018.06.19 2017가단130787