(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2016.10.28 2016가단14670

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 2016.10.28 2016가단14670

건물인도 등

Text

1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) Of the first floor of the building listed in the attached list, each of the specifications A, B, C, D, and A in the attached list.

Reasons

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. (1) On April 14, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant on the condition that the lease deposit amount of KRW 10,000,000 for the leased building, KRW 850,000 for the rent month, KRW 50,000 for the management expenses, and KRW 50,000 for the period from April 29, 2014 to April 28, 2016, where the Defendant, as the lessee, fails to pay rent at least three times (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

(2) The Defendant did not pay rent and management expenses under the instant lease agreement from December 29, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the above facts, the lease contract of this case was terminated due to the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case containing the declaration of termination of the lease contract of this case to the defendant as the defendant did not pay more than three times the rent under the lease contract of this case. Thus, the defendant is obligated to deliver the leased building of this case to the plaintiff and pay unjust enrichment and management expenses equivalent to the rent of this case calculated at the rate of 90,000 won per month from December 29, 2015 to the delivery completion date of the building of this case.

2. Defendant’s assertion and judgment

A. The defendant asserts to the following purport.

The instant lease contract is not concluded on the condition that the Home Plus Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Slus Corporation”) does not engage in the same kind of business as the convenience store operated by the Home Plus Co.

Nevertheless, the Plaintiff interfered with the Defendant’s business on the ground that the Defendant’s business is the same as the convenience store of the Nonparty Company, thereby violating the obligation to use and profit from the leased building of this case.

Therefore, the defendant cannot accept the plaintiff's claim because he has no obligation to pay rent.

(b) Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 3.

유사 판례

-대구지방법원 2018.12.11 2018가단14776

-대구지방법원 2017.11.10 2017가단108810

-서울남부지방법원 2016.12.23 2016가단229274

-수원지방법원 평택지원 2019. 11. 15. 선고 2019가단2198(본소), 2019가단3399(반소) 판결

-서울남부지방법원 2016.06.24 2015가단228823