logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2018.08.22 2018가단14051
부당이득금
Text

1. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff for 60,000,000 won and 5% per annum from March 29, 2018 to August 22, 2018.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On August 29, 2014, the Plaintiff leased all of the instant factories and machinery and apparatus from Nonparty D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) to Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si (hereinafter “instant factories”). On September 22, 2014, upon obtaining D’s consent, the Plaintiff sub-leaseed part of the instant factories and machinery and apparatus to the Defendants for the period from May 1, 2015 to April 30, 2019, with the lease deposit amount of KRW 50,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 5,000,000, and the lease period of KRW 50,000,000.

B. On May 1, 2015, the Plaintiff delivered the instant factory to the Defendants, and received KRW 50,000,000 from the Defendants the lease deposit.

C. However, on March 6, 2017, the instant factory was sold to a third party with respect to the instant factory, and the Defendants delivered the instant factory to the buyer around October 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, the Defendants are jointly and severally obligated to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid rent of KRW 110,000,000 from May 1, 2015 to February 28, 2017 (i.e., KRW 5,000,000 x 22 months) minus the lease deposit (=10,000,000 - 50,000,000 - 50,000,000), as the Plaintiff seeks.

B. As to this, the Defendants asserted that they paid AF a rent of KRW 36,190,000,000. However, there is no evidence to prove such Defendants’ assertion, and even if there is no evidence to prove, the Defendants paid KRW 36,190,000 to F.

However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that F was entitled to receive the rent under the instant lease agreement on behalf of the Plaintiff, and this part of the Defendants’ assertion is without merit.

C. Therefore, the Defendants asserted that the Plaintiff is jointly and severally seeking unjust enrichment, but the content of the said claim is substantially paid the amount equivalent to the rent prior to the expiration of the lease contract.

arrow