logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.01.25 2015가단5240822
사용료
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On February 19, 2014, between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff on the following terms: (a) the household exhibition of a mutual name, “Nobabababa” (hereinafter “instant commercial building”) of the gallony 201-2 and B204-4 below the ground among the gallony 85, Seongdong-gu Seoul, Seoul (U.S. 1A); (b) the Defendant shall pay a fee equivalent to 20% of the sales amount as monthly rent (payment on the fifth of the following month); and (c) the term of lease shall be from March 1, 2014 to February 28, 2015; and (d) one year thereafter (50 million won or less) and monthly rent (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

On August 2014, the Plaintiff consented to the Defendant to use the instant commercial building B201-1.

(hereinafter referred to as the above 201-2, 2204-4, and 201-1 of the above 2nd basements B201-2, B204-4 were referred to as the “instant stores”).

Article 5 of the General Terms and Conditions of Lease Agreement included in the terms and conditions of the instant lease agreement provides that, as a special agreement, in the case of “fee store” where the fee (20% of the sales amount) is paid as rent, the management fee for the relevant store shall be paid by the Plaintiff, who is a lessor.

C. After the expiration of the instant lease agreement, the Defendant delivered the instant store to the Defendant on November 2015.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's evidence No. 1, and the purport of whole pleading

2. Determination as to a claim for return of unjust enrichment equivalent to rent

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) even after the expiration of the term of validity of the instant lease agreement, the Defendant did not return the instant store and occupied and used the instant store until November 2015. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seek payment of KRW 6,939,000 by filing a claim for restitution of unjust enrichment (Partial claim) equivalent to the rent for the instant store from March 2015 to October 31, 2015, prior to receiving an order to order the instant store from March 3, 2015.

arrow