(영문) 울산지방법원 2020.09.17 2020가단1652

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 2020.09.17 2020가단1652

건물인도 등

Text

1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

A. Of the first floor of the real estate stated in the attached Form, the indication of the attached Form A, B, C, D, E, and A shall be as follows.

Reasons

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of each statement in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 3 (including the provisional number), the plaintiff completed the registration of preservation of ownership on June 22, 1998. On August 18, 2016, the plaintiff entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter referred to as "lease agreement") with the defendant by setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 10 million for the lease deposit, KRW 50 million for the lease deposit, KRW 50 million for the monthly rent, and KRW 500,000 for the lease contract from November 15, 2016 to November 15, 2019 for the lease agreement (hereinafter referred to as "lease agreement"), and the plaintiff did not notify the defendant of the fact that the lease agreement was terminated on December 18, 2016 to December 15, 2016, the plaintiff did not pay a duplicate of the lease agreement to the defendant. The plaintiff did not notify the defendant of the cancellation of the lease agreement.

B. According to the above facts, since the lease contract of this case was lawfully terminated due to the Defendant’s unpaid rent, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the leased object of this case to the Plaintiff by restitution to its original state, and pay the amount calculated by the rate of KRW 500,000 per month due to monthly rent from December 16, 2016 to the completion date of delivery of the leased object of this case and return of unjust enrichment corresponding thereto.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The Defendant asserted that it was a monthly rent for three years after the conclusion of the instant lease agreement.

Although water was generated in the leased object of this case, the defendant could not perform funeral services because the plaintiff did not repair it.

The plaintiff should return the damage and deposit amount of KRW 10 million that the defendant suffered as a result of this.

B. The Defendant paid the monthly rent after December 2016.

(2) No business operator shall operate the leased object of this case.

유사 판례

-서울서부지방법원 2018.02.22 2017나3165

-서울남부지방법원 2016.10.28 2016가단14670

-서울북부지방법원 2020.10.08 2020가단5256

-창원지방법원 진주지원 2018.03.21 2017가단6104

-춘천지방법원 2017.07.20 2017가단2017