logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2019.01.23 2018가단115174
건물명도(인도)
Text

1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant B shall pay KRW 4,200,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from July 12, 2018 to the date of full payment.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On September 1, 2012, the Plaintiff owned a building of 194 square meters in Daegu Northern-gu E (hereinafter “instant land”) and the 2nd floor thereof (hereinafter “instant building”). On September 1, 2012, the Plaintiff leased part of the 1st floor of the instant building to Defendant B as KRW 3 million, monthly rent, and KRW 450,000,000. On April 6, 2018 after the lease term expires, the Plaintiff was transferred on April 6, 2018, but did not receive a total of KRW 7.2 million.

B. On December 2014, the Plaintiff leased part of the first floor among the instant building to Defendant C at KRW 5 million per month and KRW 500,000 per month. After the lease term expires, the Plaintiff was delivered on May 11, 2018, but did not receive KRW 9 million in total.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 14 (if there are provisional numbers, including them; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the result of the measurement commission to the Daegu Deputy Governor of the Korea Land Information Corporation, the purport of the entire pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the facts of recognition as above, barring any special circumstance, Defendant B and C are obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 4.2 million calculated by deducting the deposit amount of KRW 3 million from the deposit amount of KRW 7.2 million in arrears, and Defendant C is obligated to pay KRW 4 million after deducting the deposit amount of KRW 5 million from the deposit amount of KRW 9 million in arrears.

As to this, Defendant B claimed that the leased object was KRW 7 million due to the repair cost, etc. of the leased object and that the leased object was improved with a considerable amount of money, and the beneficial cost claim (30 million won) was made by improving the leased object, and that the premium amounting to KRW 30 million was also lost, and thus, Defendant B claimed that the Plaintiff set off the overdue rent obligation against the Plaintiff.

The defendant B's assertion is not acceptable, since there is no evidence to acknowledge that the defendant B had a claim as alleged above.

Therefore, Defendant B served 4.2 million won and a copy of the complaint of this case on the Plaintiff.

arrow