(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2014.06.27 2013가단220904

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 2014.06.27 2013가단220904

건물명도 등

Text

1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) deliver the buildings listed in the separate sheet;

(b) from April 10, 2014 to the annexed list.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On March 17, 2011, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant to deposit KRW 540,000,000 with respect to the instant apartment owned by the Plaintiff, and the term of the contract from April 8, 2011 to April 7, 2013 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

B. The defendant paid the above deposit to the plaintiff around that time, and the plaintiff delivered the apartment of this case to the defendant.

C. On November 5, 2013, when the instant lawsuit was pending, the Plaintiff deposited the remainder of KRW 33,396,00 with the Seoul Central District Court No. 22869, supra, for the Defendant, KRW 506,60,00 among the said deposit, and KRW 33,396,000 with the said court No. 7632 on April 9, 2014.

The defendant is residing in the apartment of this case until the closing date of the pleadings of this case, and rent is KRW 2,783,00 per month when there is no deposit after April 8, 2013 of the above apartment.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1, 2, 5, and 8, result of appraiser C's rent appraisal, purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, since the lease contract of this case was terminated upon the expiration of the period on April 7, 2013, the defendant has a duty to deliver the apartment of this case to the plaintiff, barring any special circumstances, barring any special circumstance. Moreover, since the plaintiff made a deposit for only a part of the deposit, and thereafter deposited the shortage, it can be deemed that the effective deposit for the total amount of the deposit was made from that time. Thus, the plaintiff is obligated to return unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent after April 10, 2014, which is the following day.

B. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff sought the return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent from April 8, 2013 to April 9, 2014, which was the day following the end of the instant lease contract. However, the instant lease contract is issued only by the Defendant, and gains from occupying and using the instant apartment during the contract period without monthly rent, and the Plaintiff shall pay interest on the deposit.

유사 판례

-서울남부지방법원 2015.10.02 2015가단10497

-대전지방법원 2018.05.10 2017가단26277

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.04.24 2014나37384

-광주지방법원 2016.12.23 2016나4675

-수원지방법원안양지원 2020.08.21 2020가합37