logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.04.19 2018가단5181887
건물명도(인도)
Text

1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

A. To deliver the real estate listed in the separate sheet, and to the above real estate from September 1, 2018.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On November 25, 1983, C entered into a lease agreement with D, setting a deposit of KRW 7 million, monthly rent of KRW 450,000 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). At that time, the Defendant received the instant real estate from D and operated E’s mutual restaurant, and paid C a direct rent. The said lease agreement was explicitly renewed until the time of the instant lawsuit.

B. On March 2, 2016, the Plaintiff succeeded to the instant real estate from C, and the Defendant did not pay KRW 1 million per month to the Plaintiff from May 2017, and the instant warden, which included the Plaintiff’s declaration of intent to terminate the instant lease contract on the ground of the Plaintiff’s delinquency in rent, was served on the Defendant on September 27, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 5, Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. Since the Defendant without title occupies and uses the instant real estate without title, it is obligated to deliver the instant real estate to the Plaintiff and return unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent.

Even if the Defendant is a legitimate lessee or sub-lessee of the instant real estate, the Defendant did not pay two or more rents. Therefore, the instant lease agreement was terminated, and the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant real estate to the Plaintiff and return unjust enrichment equivalent to the unpaid rent and rent.

B. According to the facts of the above recognition, since the defendant paid rent to C and the plaintiff directly while operating a restaurant in the real estate of this case for not less than 30 years, the lessee of this case under the lease contract of this case is the defendant, and the lease contract of this case was lawfully terminated by the plaintiff's declaration of termination on the ground of the defendant's delinquency in rent.

Therefore, the defendant.

arrow