(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2018.05.03 2017가단17935

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) 서울남부지방법원 2018.05.03 2017가단17935

건물명도 등

Text

1. The defendant

A. KRW 15,00,000 shall be paid from the Plaintiff and at the same time the Plaintiff shall be listed in the attached Table 1 list.

Reasons

1. If the facts of recognition showed the purport of the entire pleadings in each of the statements Nos. 1 and 3 (including paper numbers), C is ordered on July 4, 2005 to the Defendant on July 4, 2005

Since the lease of the real estate stated in paragraph (1) (hereinafter “instant store”) was leased, the lease contract has been renewed on a regular basis. According to the last lease contract concluded on July 2, 2014, the lease deposit was set at KRW 15 million, KRW 15 million per month, and KRW 1540,000 per month, and the lease term was set at between July 2, 2014 and July 1, 2016, and thereafter C died on December 5, 2016 and the Plaintiff succeeded to the status of the lessor on December 15, 2016. Meanwhile, the Defendant cannot be recognized that the amount of rent was not paid to the Plaintiff after July 3, 2017.

2. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant, the lessee, is obligated to deliver the said store to the Plaintiff as the owner of the instant store and the lessor, barring any special circumstances, and to pay unjust enrichment per rent per 1540,000 won per month calculated from July 3, 2017 to the completion date of the said delivery.

3. Judgment on the defendant's defense

A. As seen above, since the lease contract of this case was terminated simultaneously with the refund of lease deposit, the plaintiff is obligated to refund the above lease deposit amount of KRW 15 million to the defendant. Thus, the plaintiff's obligation to return the above lease deposit of this case and the delivery obligation of the defendant's store of this case are concurrently performed.

Therefore, the defendant's argument pointing this out is justified.

B. Furthermore, under the premise that lighting facilities, outer walls, interior walls, flooring days, display sites, etc. installed in the instant store constitute the accessories of the leased object, the Defendant’s right to purchase the accessories from the Plaintiff.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2014.12.18 2014가단80660

-서울북부지방법원 2016.10.27 2016가단20043

-인천지방법원부천지원 2015.09.09 2014가단42242

-부산지방법원 2015.04.03 2014나9745

-서울동부지방법원 2016.05.31 2015가단126351