logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.04.25 2017가단5235831
건물명도(인도)
Text

1. Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) D is against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

A. 30,000,000 won from the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

Reasons

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiffs, as co-owners of each of the shares in the instant real estate, agreed to lease the instant real estate with a deposit of KRW 30 million, monthly rent of KRW 600,000,000, and one year from November 7, 2008 to November 6, 2009, and received a deposit of KRW 30 million from the lessee. In this regard, the Plaintiffs, as co-owners of each of the shares in the instant real estate, were to receive KRW 1/2,000,000 from the lessee. In this regard, the lease agreement (Evidence 2, stating that the “Plaintiffs” was written in the lessor column and affixed the Plaintiff’s seal) dated November 10, 2008, which is the lessee of Defendant D (No. 1, the Plaintiff’s seal was written in the lessor column, and the Plaintiff’s seal was affixed).

B. Accordingly, from November 7, 2008, Defendant D operated and occupied and used the restaurant of “E” in the instant real estate from November 7, 2008.

C. The instant real estate lease agreement has been impliedly renewed (as of December 23, 2016, Plaintiff A donated the instant real estate 1/2 shares to Plaintiff B). On June 8, 2017, the Plaintiffs notified the Defendants of the refusal to renew the lease agreement that was concluded with respect to the instant real estate.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including paper numbers), Evidence Nos. 1 and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. In regard to the Plaintiffs’ principal claim against Defendant C, the Plaintiffs asserted that “The lessee of a lease agreement entered into with respect to the instant real estate is Defendant C and is an indirect possession of the instant real estate through Defendant D, the direct occupant,” and sought against Defendant C a return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent from the date of termination of the lease agreement and the delivery of the instant real estate and the completion of delivery.

In other words, the following circumstances are as follows: (a) the facts acknowledged earlier or the facts revealed or known in the pleading of this case.

arrow