(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.07.12 2015가단193198

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 2016.07.12 2015가단193198

건물명도

Text

1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

A. From 10,00,000 to 10,000 won, the delivery of buildings listed in the separate sheet from September 1, 2015 to the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On May 14, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant on the lease deposit amounting to KRW 10 million, monthly rent amounting to KRW 700,000,000, and from June 1, 2015 to May 31, 2017 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”), and delivered the instant building to the Defendant on June 1, 2015.

B. From September 1, 2015, the Defendant occupied and used the instant building without paying rent to the present day.

C. On November 5, 2015, the Plaintiff notified the termination of the instant lease agreement on the grounds of the delinquency in rent for at least two years.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap's 1 through 3, purport of whole pleading

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the instant lease agreement was terminated due to the delay in rent for at least two years, barring special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff, and to pay the Plaintiff the rent or unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent, calculated by the ratio of KRW 700,000 per month from September 1, 2015 to the completion date of delivery of the said building.

B. The Defendant alleged that (i) since the Defendant spent 2.80,000 won of the repair cost of the building of this case on behalf of the Plaintiff, it should be deducted from the overdue rent. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge this, and the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

See The defendant argued to the effect that he cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim before receiving each of the above expenses, since he moved into the building of this case and set up a air conditioner, a bladr, etc., and paid construction expenses due to water supply pipes. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge this. Thus, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

Secondly, the Defendant asserts that the instant building cannot be transferred before the Plaintiff received a refund of the deposit for lease.

2.3.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2015.05.21 2014나48955

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.06.28 2015가단209659

-의정부지방법원 2015.10.16 2015가단107991

-수원지방법원 안산지원 2018.06.22 2017가단15324

-서울북부지방법원 2019.11.27 2019가단124144