(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.05.02 2016가단92773

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.05.02 2016가단92773

건물명도

Text

1. The Plaintiff:

A. The Defendant Company’s main industry is from 3,460,000 to 3,460,000 won from the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On August 30, 2015, the Plaintiff: (a) leased the instant building owned by the Plaintiff to the Defendant Loading Industry; (b) agreed that deposit was KRW 15,00,000; and (c) the period until August 30, 2017; and (d) rent was KRW 1,40,000 per month.

B. From February 29, 2016, Defendant Qat Industries did not pay rent, and on July 5, 2016, the Plaintiff sent a content-certified mail that contains an intent to terminate a lease agreement to Defendant Qat Industries.

At present, the Defendants jointly occupy and use the instant building.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The lease contract was lawfully terminated, since the Plaintiff’s declaration of intention was delivered to terminate the contract for the reason that the Defendant Loading Industry, the lessee of the judgment, was in arrears with more than two months of the rent, and the contract was terminated for this reason.

Accordingly, Defendant B, who occupies the instant building without a legitimate title, should jointly deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff who is the owner and pay the unpaid rent and unjust enrichment equivalent to the unpaid rent.

The defendant set industry can not deliver the building of this case until the security deposit is paid to the defendant set up simultaneous performance defense.

As of March 31, 2017, the fact that deposit 3,460,000 won remains as of March 31, 2017 remains, there is no dispute between the parties, and since the obligation to deliver the building to the defendant tower industry and to return the deposit to the plaintiff is a simultaneous performance relationship, the defense is partially justifiable.

Therefore, from April 1, 2017 to the completion date of delivery of the building of this case, Defendant Qat Industry should receive money from the Plaintiff after deducting the rent of KRW 1,400,000 per month and the amount of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent from KRW 3,460,000 from the Plaintiff and at the same time deliver the building of this case to the Plaintiff.

In addition, Defendant B transferred the instant building to the Plaintiff in collaboration with Defendant B’s tower industry.

유사 판례

-서울서부지방법원 2017.05.30 2017가단3393

-서울북부지방법원 2020.05.07 2019가단18744

-수원지방법원안산지원 2016.01.15 2015가단110089

-서울북부지방법원 2017.06.09 2017가단3564

-광주지방법원 2015.12.17 2015가단29911