logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2019.05.31 2018가단226830
건물명도(인도)
Text

1. As to KRW 12,439,60 and KRW 5,179,60 among the Plaintiff, the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 12,439,60 from August 2, 2018, KRW 7,260,00.

Reasons

1. Indication of claims: To describe the grounds for claims and the grounds for claims altered in attached Form;

2. Judgment on deemed confession: Articles 208 (3) 2 and 150 (3) of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. On April 30, 2018, the Plaintiff asserts to the effect that the instant lease agreement was terminated on April 30, 2018, and that the Defendant sent the content-certified mail to the Defendant on April 23, 2018, which stated that the instant lease agreement was terminated, and that the instant lease agreement was terminated on April 30, 2018.

The Plaintiff sought for the payment of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent from May 1, 2018 to October 31, 2018, after the termination of the instant lease agreement, from May 1, 2018 to October 31, 2018.

However, the obligation to return unjust enrichment is an obligation without setting a deadline, and there is a delay liability from the date following the receipt of the request for performance. There is no assertion that the Plaintiff made a request for performance of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent prior to the delivery of the copy of the request for change of the claim and the claim cause as of February 22, 2019.

Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the defendant is liable for delay from the day following the delivery of the duplicate of the above application for change, and the plaintiff's assertion about delay damages before the delivery of the duplicate is rejected.

As regards the Plaintiff’s total amount of KRW 12,439,60, including unjust enrichment equivalent to overdue rent or rent, and KRW 5,179,600 among them (i.e., KRW 12,439,600 - 7,260,000 in total, including unjust enrichment equivalent to six months from May 1, 2018 to October 31, 2018), the Defendant issued a copy of the complaint of this case sought by the Plaintiff after the due date for payment, and served a copy of the written application for change of the purpose of the claim and the cause of the claim on February 22, 2019, and issued a copy of the written application for change of the cause of the claim on March 5, 2019, which deemed reasonable for the Defendant to dispute the existence or scope of the obligation to perform from March 5, 2019, respectively.

arrow