(영문) 부산지방법원동부지원 2019.06.20 2019가단200944

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) 부산지방법원동부지원 2019.06.20 2019가단200944

건물명도(인도)

Text

1. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) paid KRW 62,186,00 to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and against this, from April 15, 2019 to April 16, 2019.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On June 9, 2017, the Plaintiff leased the instant real estate to the Defendant with a deposit of KRW 100 million, monthly rent of KRW 5.1 million (including value-added tax), and the lease period from June 9, 2017 to June 8, 2019.

However, Article 4 of the Special Agreement on Real Estate Lease provides that "the security deposit shall be the amount settled by succession from the former lessee, and the lessor shall be obligated to return the security deposit to the present lessee after the deduction of the restoration and unpaid management expenses at the time of the termination of the contract," and the monthly rent was paid by the fourth day of each month.

(A) Evidence 1. (b)

The Defendant failed to pay the Plaintiff monthly rent from September 2018 to September 2018, and paid the monthly rent of KRW 2,4350,000 as of January 2019.

C. The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on the ground that the lease contract was terminated, and the duplicate of the complaint containing such declaration was served on the Defendant on February 11, 2019.

The Defendant delivered the instant real estate to the Plaintiff on April 15, 2019, when the instant lawsuit was pending.

[Ground] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 to 3 evidence, Eul 1 to 3 evidence (including all of the serial numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed to be filed together;

A. The fact that the Defendant had already delivered the instant real estate to the Plaintiff on April 15, 2019 is not a dispute between the parties, thus the Plaintiff’s claim cannot be accepted.

B. The Plaintiff’s principal claim for restitution of unjust enrichment on the part of the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s counterclaim 1: KRW 100 million on the premise that the Plaintiff did not have any obligation to refund KRW 100 million on the grounds that the Plaintiff had no actual receipt of KRW 100 million from the Defendant or from the former lessee. However, according to the evidence evidence No. 1, the Plaintiff and the Defendant did not receive the deposit from the Defendant, but did not receive the deposit from the actual Defendant, the obligation to return the deposit amount of KRW 100 million on the Defendant.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원성남지원 2020.11.06 2019가단230256

-서울동부지방법원 2018.08.23 2018가단105225

-대전지방법원 홍성지원 2021.02.17 2020가단34424

-수원지방법원 2017.12.15 2017고단4453

-서울북부지방법원 2016.03.30 2015가단109147