logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원안양지원 2015.11.26 2015가단11593
건물명도
Text

1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) Of the buildings listed in the separate sheet, each point indicated in the separate sheet Nos. 3, 4, 7, 8, and 3;

Reasons

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments as to Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, the lease contract of this case between the defendant and the defendant on August 22, 2014, with regard to the lease deposit amount of KRW 3,00,000,000 and KRW 14.454 square meters (hereinafter "the building of this case"), which was connected in order to each point of the attached Table Nos. 3, 4, 7, 8, and 3 among the buildings listed in the attached Table No. 1 owned by the plaintiff, between the defendant and the defendant on August 22, 2014, the lease contract of this case is "the lease contract of this case" by setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 14.454 square meters (hereinafter "the building of this case").

A. Around that time, the Plaintiff: (a) delivered the instant building to the Defendant; and (b) the Defendant occupied and used the said building; (c) the Defendant delayed to pay rent under the instant lease agreement from March 22, 2015; (d) the Defendant stored waste home appliances and fixtures on the lower-hand land of the instant building owned by the Plaintiff without permission; and (e) the Defendant stored waste home appliances and fixtures on the lower-hand land of the instant building, which is the land owned by the Plaintiff; and (e) can be acknowledged

According to the above facts, since the lease contract of this case was terminated upon the expiration of the term, the defendant is obligated to deliver the building of this case to the plaintiff on the ground of the termination of the lease contract of this case, and return the rent or unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent, calculated at the rate of KRW 300,000 per month from March 22, 2015 to the completion date of delivery of the building of this case. Further, the defendant occupied the land owned by the plaintiff without permission and caused damages equivalent to KRW 770,00 for waste disposal costs due to the tort committed by the defendant who occupied the waste home appliances without permission, etc., and thus, the defendant is obligated to compensate the plaintiff

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim shall be accepted on the grounds of all the claims, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow