(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2018.12.18 2018가단15714

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) 서울남부지방법원 2018.12.18 2018가단15714

건물명도

Text

1. The Plaintiff:

A. The Defendants are each of the marks 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1 of the drawings of the first floor among the real estate listed in the attached list.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Of the real estate indicated in the attached list, the portion of 8.6 square meters in the ship (A) connected each point of 1,2,3,4, and 1, among the real estate indicated in the attached list, is owned by the Plaintiff. On October 31, 2017, the Plaintiff leased the instant building to Defendant B as KRW 5,000,000, monthly income, and KRW 350,000,000. The Defendants also occupy the instant building.

B. On October 31, 2017, the Plaintiff terminated the lease contract on the ground that Defendant B was in arrears for at least three months, and on October 31, 2017, the Plaintiff returned KRW 3,000,000, which deducted the overdue rent from the deposit.

C. Defendant C, while occupying the instant building, deposited the monthly rent amount from October 1, 2018 to August 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 7, Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition, since the lease contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant B is deemed terminated, the Defendants ordered the Plaintiff to order the instant building, and Defendant B, after September 1, 2018, obligated to return the amount of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent of KRW 350,000 per month from September 1, 2018 to the date of completion of this name.

B. Although Defendant C did not receive a refund of the lease deposit from the Plaintiff, as seen earlier, it can be acknowledged that the lease contract on the instant building was concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant B, and that the remainder of the lease deposit was returned after deducting the settlement of overdue rent between the Plaintiff and the Defendant B. Therefore, the above assertion is without merit.

Although Defendant C asserts that the lease agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant B was made false for business registration and thus becomes null and void, the lease agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant cannot be deemed null and void solely on the grounds of the above Defendant’s assertion.

3. citing the Plaintiff’s claim.

유사 판례

-광주지방법원 2015.11.24 2015가단37745

-광주지방법원 2015.10.06 2015가단12081

-대전지방법원논산지원 2015.05.07 2015가단802

-인천지방법원 2017.05.17 2016가단208388

-수원지방법원 2016.06.23 2015가단58668