logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원부천지원 2020.01.15 2019가단22342
건물명도(인도)
Text

1. The defendant is against the plaintiffs:

A. Of the real estate 103.35 square meters in the attached list, the indication of the attached drawings 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, among the real estate indicated in the attached list.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. A. Around October 1, 2013, Nonparty D, who was an owner of 28.8 square meters in part on the ship as indicated in the text, leased the above part on the ship to the Defendant with a fixed period of KRW 27 million and a fixed period of two years. The above lease contract was renewed, and the deposit was increased to KRW 32 million.

B. Around July 23, 2018, D requested the Defendant to terminate the lease agreement, and D and the Defendant agreed to terminate the lease agreement, and D returned the remainder of KRW 369,631,00,00, including management expenses, to the Defendant around February 20, 2019.

C. The Defendant occupies the above part of the ship until the day close to the date of closing the argument in this case.

Meanwhile, around September 3, 2018, the Plaintiffs acquired 1/2 shares in the above part of the ship.

E. The rent from February 21, 2019 to December 9, 2019 in the above part is KRW 222,130 per month.

[Ground of Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 (including the number of partial heading), Eul 1, the result of the survey and appraisal conducted by appraiser E, the result of the appraiser F's appraisal of rent, the purport of all pleadings]

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, since the above lease contract was terminated, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the above part of the ship to the Plaintiff as its owner and return the unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent from February 21, 2019 to February 22, 130 of the above part from February 21, 2019 to the delivery date of the above part of the ship.

B. As seen earlier, the Defendant returned the remainder of KRW 369,631,00,00 to the effect that it is impossible for the Plaintiff to respond to the Plaintiff’s claim before receiving the remaining deposit of KRW 369,000,000, and D returned KRW 369,631,000 from KRW 32,000. However, according to the aforementioned evidence, D returned the remainder of KRW 369,631,00 under the pretext of water supply, etc., and before submitting the written response of this case, the Defendant received KRW 369,000.

arrow