logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2015.07.23 2015나50359
건물명도
Text

1. The part against the plaintiff B in the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff B's claim is dismissed.

2. The defendant's plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff A and his mother, Plaintiff B, are owners who completed the registration of ownership transfer on October 10, 2005 with 1/2 shares of each of the buildings listed in the separate sheet.

B. On July 5, 2012, the Plaintiffs and the Defendant prepared a lease deposit amount of KRW 50 million (one million among the down payment deposit, KRW 40 million on the date of the contract, KRW 2.79 million on the date of the contract), monthly rent of KRW 2.79 million (including additional tax), and KRW 2.0,000,000,000,000 in general management expenses and public charges (such as water supply and electricity, etc.) on the first floor of the building indicated in the attached Table with the lessor A and the lessee as the Defendant.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant lease contract”). The Defendant: (a) set the door to the said lease contract.

C. The Defendant did not pay a monthly rent after concluding the instant lease agreement, and the Plaintiff A notified the Defendant of the cancellation of the lease agreement by serving a duplicate of the instant complaint on the Defendant.

The instant store was delivered to the Plaintiffs on April 30, 2014.

On the other hand, during the instant lease agreement period on November 19, 2012, Plaintiff A paid 262,140 won, which was unpaid by the Defendant, and 371,420 won, on behalf of the Defendant, in March 15, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 6, 8, and 10 (including separate numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

(a) Determination of the party to the lease contract: the lessee as the defendant;

In light of the above, the plaintiffs of the first party asserted that the tenant of the lease of this case is the defendant, and thus the defendant should pay unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent after the overdue rent and the termination of the lease of this case.

arrow