(영문) 울산지방법원 2014.11.04 2014가단15834

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) 울산지방법원 2014.11.04 2014가단15834

건물명도 등

Text

1.(a)

The defendant points out of the attached Form 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 1 among the buildings listed in the attached Form to the plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire arguments in the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 as a whole, the Plaintiff, on August 31, 2012, determined and leased the lease deposit amount of KRW 10,000,000 per annum and KRW 500,000 per annum, on the part of the Plaintiff’s order on the part of the Plaintiff, to the Defendant on the part of August 31, 2012. The Defendant did not pay the rent after October 2012, and the Plaintiff expressed its intent to terminate the lease by serving a duplicate of the instant complaint on the grounds of delinquency in payment of the rent.

According to the facts of recognition, the lease contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant was lawfully terminated on June 23, 2014, on which the duplicate of the complaint of this case was served, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the lower part to the Plaintiff and pay the Plaintiff the rent or unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent after October 2012.

The Plaintiff, from October 1, 2012 to May 31, 2014, deducted the total amount of 10,000,000 won unpaid from the lease deposit, and then claimed unpaid rent from June 1, 2014. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of money calculated at the rate of 50,000 won per month from June 1, 2014 to the time he/she delivers the delayed portion.

(2) The defendant asserts that, after the termination of the lease contract, the plaintiff is not a legitimate owner of the lower part, and the amount of KRW 10,000,000 shall be refunded, and the plaintiff did not perform his/her duty to maintain the remuneration for the lower part.

The plaintiff is the owner of the unit portion, and the plaintiff is claiming the remainder of the unpaid rent after deducting the sum of KRW 10,000,000 from the lease deposit by the defendant. There is no evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff failed to perform his/her duty to maintain the remuneration for the unit portion. Thus, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion is justified and acceptable.

유사 판례

-창원지방법원통영지원 2015.09.22 2015가단3180

-창원지방법원통영지원 2015.12.08 2015가단24101

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.09.14 2015가단5067652

-창원지방법원통영지원 2015.07.21 2015가단2347

-울산지방법원 2015.06.09 2014가단34590