(영문) 춘천지방법원원주지원 2016.11.24 2016가단4234

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) 춘천지방법원원주지원 2016.11.24 2016가단4234

건물인도 등

Text

1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) deliver the buildings listed in the separate sheet;

B. From April 26, 2016:

subsection (b).

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On March 26, 2016, the Plaintiff leased the building listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant building”) to the Defendant as KRW 5,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 430,00, and the lease period from March 26, 2016 to March 25, 2017.

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). B.

From April 26, 2016, the Defendant did not pay the monthly rent stipulated in the instant lease agreement.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4 and 5

2. The judgment is based on the reasoning that the Plaintiff did not claim the termination of the instant lease contract on the ground of the Defendant’s delinquency in payment of monthly rent, but it appears in light of the purport of the content certification sent by the Plaintiff to the Defendant, the content of the claim seeking delivery of the instant building, etc., and the Plaintiff’s claim for unjust enrichment equivalent to the delivery of the instant building, overdue rent, or monthly rent. As a result, it is determined that the Plaintiff is deemed to terminate the instant contract, and that the Plaintiff seek unjust enrichment equivalent to the delivery of the instant building, overdue rent, and the amount of unjust enrichment equivalent to the instant rent

The facts that the Defendant did not pay the monthly rent for at least two years are as seen earlier, and the Plaintiff expressed his/her intent to terminate the instant lease contract by serving the instant complaint, and the instant warden was served to the Defendant on September 19, 2016 is apparent in the record.

Therefore, the instant lease agreement was lawfully terminated, and accordingly, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff and pay KRW 430,000 per month from April 26, 2016 to the completion date of delivery of the instant building as unjust enrichment equivalent to the overdue rent or monthly rent.

3. The plaintiff's claim for the conclusion is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.

유사 판례

-서울서부지방법원 2016.02.03 2015가단28824

-서울서부지방법원 2016.12.14 2016가단25044

-서울동부지방법원 2016.05.03 2015가단129787

-대법원 1987. 6. 23. 선고 86다카2865 판결

-서울서부지방법원 2016.04.06 2015가단36184