logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2016.08.12 2016나53164
건물명도
Text

1. The part against the defendant B in the judgment of the first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim against the defendant B is dismissed.

2...

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On October 10, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter “the lease agreement in this case”) on the condition that the lease deposit is KRW 10,200,000, monthly rent of KRW 1,300,000 (payment on or before October 2, 2014), and the lease period is from October 10, 2014 to March 10, 2015, on condition that the Plaintiff shall separately pay the value-added tax and the management fee and the lease contract is automatically terminated if the lessee delays the lease for at least three months (hereinafter “the lease agreement in this case”).

B. At the time of the conclusion of the instant lease agreement, Defendant B prepared a contract on behalf of the Defendant Shin C, and affixed his seal on the lessee column.

C. The instant lease agreement was explicitly renewed after the termination of the agreed term, and the Defendant’s New Carcke was overdue for at least three months from August 10, 2015.

Accordingly, on November 26, 2015, the Plaintiff sent a content-certified mail to the Defendants to notify the termination of the instant lease agreement, and the said content-certified mail was sent to Defendant New Carcke on November 27, 2015, respectively to Defendant B on December 1, 2015.

On the other hand, the Plaintiff was paid the unpaid car from May 2016 after the filing of the instant lawsuit.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the claim against the defendant B

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion asserts that Defendant B is the actual lessee of the instant building, and as the ancillary illegal occupant, Defendant B is obligated to order the instant building to the Plaintiff and pay the Plaintiff the amount of unjust enrichment equivalent to the monthly rent of KRW 1,430,000 from June 10, 2016 to the completion date of delivery of the instant building.

B. According to the facts of the above recognition, this case is examined.

arrow