logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2014.11.11 2014나24824
건물인도 등
Text

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The Defendant delivers the building indicated in the attached list to the Plaintiff, and on December 28, 2013.

Reasons

1. The following facts may be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 4 (including paper numbers):

On December 28, 2011, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to lease the building listed in the attached list (hereinafter referred to as the “instant building”) to the Defendant by setting the lease deposit of KRW 150,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 3,000,00 (including value-added tax), and the lease term of KRW 3,30,000,000 (including value-added tax), from December 28, 201 to December 27, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant lease contract”).

B. Around that time, the Plaintiff delivered the instant building to the Defendant pursuant to the instant lease agreement, and the Defendant paid KRW 150,000,000 to the Plaintiff as lease deposit.

C. On October 25, 2013, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a content-certified mail stating that the term of the instant lease agreement expires on December 27, 2013, and the content-certified mail sent to the Defendant on October 28, 2013.

On November 18, 2013, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a content-certified mail to the effect that the term of the instant lease agreement expires on December 27, 2013, and that it would not renew the contract. The content-certified mail sent to the Defendant on November 19, 2013.

2. According to the facts established on the basis of the judgment on the cause of the claim, the instant lease contract was terminated on December 27, 2013, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff, and return the unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent calculated by the Defendant at the rate of KRW 3,300,000 per month from December 28, 2013, following the expiration date of the said period until the delivery of the instant building to the Defendant.

The Defendant alleged to the effect that unjust enrichment does not accrue since he deposited the rent of KRW 3,300,00 for January 2014 with the Cheongju District Court Decision No. 876 of 2013, the Cheongju District Court Decision 2013, the repayment of the rent of KRW 3,300,000, but as long as he deposited part of the debt, the collection of the

arrow