(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.11.24 2017가단5105305

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.11.24 2017가단5105305

부당이득 및 불법행위에 의한 손해배상

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 June 1, 2008, the Defendant concluded a lease agreement with the Plaintiff on the part of 266.77 square meters of the building on the 1st floor in Seongdong-gu, Seoul, the Plaintiff owned (hereinafter “instant leased object”). At that time, the Defendant occupied and used the instant leased object by delivery. On June 1, 2015, the Defendant concluded a lease agreement with the Plaintiff by setting the lease agreement as of May 31, 2016, by the end of KRW 45,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 2,600,000, and the lease term of KRW 2,60,000, and May 31, 2016.

B. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant with Seoul East Eastern District Court 2016Kadan117538 on the ground of the expiration of the period of validity, and the conciliation was concluded on December 7, 2016 as follows.

The Defendant delivered the leased object of this case to the Plaintiff by April 15, 2017, but the Plaintiff exempted the Defendant from the duty to restore the leased object of this case to the Plaintiff without delay after receiving the delivery of the leased object of this case, confirmed that the Plaintiff did not exempt or reduce the Defendant from the obligation to pay the monthly rent or management expenses, etc. for the Plaintiff.

C. The Defendant removed from the leased object of this case on April 14, 2017, but left the boiler, wastewater, and urban gas facilities in the instant leased object, and the Plaintiff returned KRW 40,000,000 to the Defendant on April 17, 2017 and April 18, 2017.

The Defendant removed boiler on May 8, 2017, and collected wastewater in July 23, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, each entry or video, or the whole pleading of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including virtual number)

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendant installed industrial gas facilities on the leased object of this case. The Defendant’s failure to collect them, thereby causing the Plaintiff to incur KRW 8,500,000 to remove the said facilities. 2) The leased object of this case under the above conciliation protocol.

유사 판례

-청주지방법원 2017.02.23 2016가단10087

-부산지방법원 2020.01.31 2019나43900

-전주지방법원 2018.08.08 2018가단4309

-대구지방법원 2015.08.11 2013가단800293

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.04.05 2017가단5051095