logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2017.03.08 2016가단27467
건물명도 등
Text

1. The Defendants jointly do so to the Plaintiff:

A. Of the first floor below the real estate listed in the attached list, the scope of the attached drawings indicated shall be determined by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Patriots and Veterans Affairs.

Reasons

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

가. 인정 사실 원고는 2014. 5. 17. 피고들과 별지 목록 기재 부동산 지하 1층 중 별지 도면 표시 ㉠, ㉡, ㉢, ㉣, ㉤, ㉥, ㉠의 각 점을 차례로 연결한 선내 부분 120.47㎡(이하 ‘이 사건 건물’이라고 한다)를 보증금은 5,000,000원으로, 차임은 월 600,000원으로(차임은 매월 23일 선불하기로 함), 임대차기간은 2014. 5. 23.부터 2016. 5. 22.까지로 정하여 임대하는 내용의 임대차계약(이하 ‘이 사건 임대차계약’이라고 한다)을 체결하고, 그 무렵 피고들에게 이 사건 건물을 인도하였다.

The defendants use the building of this case as the office for its original purpose until the date of the closing of argument.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Entry of Gap evidence 1, purport of whole pleadings

B. According to the facts found above, since the instant lease contract as of the date of the closing of argument in the instant case expired, the Defendants are jointly obligated to deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff, and to pay 600,000 won monthly rents or rents from March 23, 2016 to the date of the completion of delivery of the instant building, barring any special circumstance.

(1) The Defendants asserted to the effect that they could not take advantage of or benefit from the instant building by cutting the key of the instant building after July 2016. However, in light of the following: (a) the Plaintiff acquired the key of the instant building; (b) the female employee of the Defendants took advantage of the process during which the Plaintiff acquired the key of the instant building; and (c) the Defendants asserted that the Plaintiff and the Defendants had no anti-feasible relationship after visiting the instant building; (d) it is reasonable to deem that the Defendants had been able to take advantage of or benefit from the instant building even after July 2016, the unjust enrichment gained by the Defendants from the possession and use of the instant building after the termination of

arrow