logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 진주지원 2018.04.03 2017가단5811
건물명도 등
Text

1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

A. Of the buildings indicated in the attached list, Class 1 neighborhood living facilities of the first floor, 62.9 square meters and single-story houses.

Reasons

1. The description of the grounds for the claim shall be as specified in the attached Form;

2. Article 208 (3) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act (Judgment by public notice) of the applicable provisions of Acts;

3. Giving benefits in return of unjust enrichment on the ground that the lessee was benefiting without any legal ground for partial dismissal, refers to the substantial benefit. Thus, in a case where, even though the lessee continued to possess the leased building after the lease contract relationship was terminated, it did not gain actual benefits because the lessee failed to use or make profits according to the original purpose of the lease contract, even if the lessor suffered losses, the lessee’s obligation to return unjust enrichment does not exist. The same applies even if the lessee did not use or make profits from the leased building due to the lessee’s circumstances, or

(See Supreme Court Decision 98Da8554 delivered on July 10, 1998. The Plaintiff sought a rent according to the ratio of KRW 1,30,000 per month from the date on which the Defendant completed the delivery of the instant building, which is the Class 1 neighborhood living facilities of the first floor, 62.9m2, and 35.58m2 of the first floor, among the buildings indicated in the separate sheet, (hereinafter “instant building”).

However, even after May 1, 2017, the Plaintiff’s assertion on the part claiming the return of unjust enrichment equivalent to rent from May 1, 2017, is without merit, unless there is proof as to the fact that the Defendant uses and benefits from the instant building according to the purpose of the lease agreement.

[Therefore, the sum of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent to be paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff is 3.51 million won in arrears from February 10, 2017 to April 30, 2017 (=1.3 million won in arrears x 21/30)].

arrow