(영문) 의정부지방법원 2018.12.14 2018가단6662

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) 의정부지방법원 2018.12.14 2018가단6662

건물인도 등

Text

1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) deliver the real estate listed in the separate sheet;

(b) from September 30, 2016, entry in the separate sheet.

Reasons

1. Determination

A. On September 24, 2002, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with the term of KRW 10 million (payment on September 30, 200, KRW 600,000,000 per month (payment on September 30), and the term of lease 24 months with respect to the instant real estate. The Defendant is operating the PC upon delivery of the instant real estate, and the Defendant was in arrears from September 2016, when the Defendant had been implicitly renewed the instant lease agreement, and the Plaintiff expressed his intention to terminate the instant lease by delivery of a copy of the complaint in the instant case, or there is no dispute between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.

According to the above facts, the lease contract of this case was terminated on June 14, 2018, which was the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant real estate to the Plaintiff, and pay the rent calculated at the rate of KRW 600,000 per month from September 30, 2016 to the completion date of delivery of the instant real estate, or to return unjust enrichment (the unjust enrichment after the termination of the instant lease agreement may be confirmed as equal to the rent).

B. Determination 1 on the Defendant’s argument that the Defendant made an oral promise to offset the amount of damage and arrears suffered by the Defendant against each other, but there is no evidence to acknowledge this. Accordingly, this part of the Defendant’s assertion is rejected. 2) The Defendant asserts to the effect that it is unable to comply with the Plaintiff’s claim because it was considerably hindered in PC operations by preventing damage caused by water leakage. In light of the evidence and photograph related to water leakage submitted by the Defendant, it would be likely that the Defendant would interfere with the scope of the PC operations due to water leakage.

However, the following circumstances, i.e., the entry of No. 1, added to the purport of the entire pleadings, are revealed.

유사 판례

-서울서부지방법원 2014.11.20 2013가단52342

-의정부지방법원 2015.12.11 2013가단61220

-수원지방법원 2016.02.05 2014나44106

-수원지방법원여주지원 2019.01.17 2017가단55256

-대전지방법원 천안지원 2018.06.20 2018가단100058