logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2019.01.25 2018가단14024
건물명도(인도)
Text

1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) deliver 326 square meters of three floors among the real estate listed in the attached list;

B. From July 1, 2018, the same shall apply.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with C on the lease deposit amount of KRW 30,000,000, and KRW 3,550,000,000 (excluding value-added tax) for the lease of the three-storys of real estate listed in the attached list (hereinafter “instant building”).

B. C sold a factory operated in the instant building to the Defendant around April 2017. The Defendant, around that time, occupied and used the instant building, and paid KRW 3,550,000 each month to the Plaintiff by June 2018.

The plaintiff reported that the monthly rent was deposited in his account in the name of the defendant, and the defendant knew that he was transferred the possession of the building of this case from C, and that he concluded a lease contract with the defendant regularly, but the defendant rejected it.

C. The defendant currently occupies and uses the building of this case.

[Grounds for Recognition] deemed confession (Article 150 (3) and (1) of the Civil Procedure Act)

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. According to the above facts, since the defendant occupies and uses the building of this case owned by the plaintiff without legitimate title, the defendant is obligated to deliver the building of this case to the plaintiff.

On the other hand, the defendant has a duty to return to the plaintiff the unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent in relation to the building of this case, since he obtained a profit equivalent to the rent by occupying and using the building of this case without legitimate title, and he suffered a loss to the plaintiff.

In ordinary cases, the amount of profit from the possession and use of real estate is equivalent to the rent of that real estate. Since the rent on the building of this case after June 2018 is confirmed to be the same amount as the monthly rent of KRW 3,550,000, which is the rent under the above lease agreement entered into between the plaintiff and C, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent calculated at the rate of KRW 3,550,000 per month from July 1, 2018 to the completion date of delivery of the building of this case.

(b).

arrow