(영문) 인천지방법원 2021.03.18 2020가단270700

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) 인천지방법원 2021.03.18 2020가단270700

건물인도

Text

The Defendant, as the Plaintiff

(a) deliver the real estate listed in the separate sheet;

B. From October 27, 2020, 5,600 won and above.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On October 9, 2018, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant to lease the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant apartment”) to the Defendant with a deposit of KRW 20 million, monthly rent of KRW 800,000,000, and the period from October 27, 2018 to October 26, 2020 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”), and delivered the instant apartment to the Defendant.

B. Around August 2020, the Plaintiff sent a text message to Defendant Company’s mobile phone, stating that “The five-month monthly rent did not enter and the maturity of the director would change on October 26, 202,” and that the unpaid rent as of October 26, 2020 is KRW 5.6 million (=8 million x 7 months).

(c)

The apartment house of this case has been used as a lodging house for the employees of the defendant company, and as of the closing date of the argument of this case, a person who is or was an employee of the defendant company still occupies and uses it.

【Grounds for Recognition】 Each entry in the evidence Nos. 2, 3, and 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the parties’ assertion

A. According to the facts acknowledged in the above 1. Paragraph (1) of the judgment on the cause of the claim, since the instant lease agreement has expired at the expiration of the term, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant apartment to the Plaintiff and pay the unpaid rent of KRW 5.6 million, barring special circumstances.

In addition, since a person who was an employee or employee of the defendant company occupies and uses the apartment house of this case even after the termination of the lease contract of this case, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff the unfair profit equivalent to the rent, barring special circumstances.

B. The defendant's assertion asserts that since the defendant occupies the apartment of this case by a third party, the defendant has no obligation to deliver the above apartment, rent, and pay unfair profit.

possession of a thing is a person's factual control under social norms.

As seen, it refers to the objective relationship, which is de facto.

유사 판례

-의정부지방법원 2021.04.14 2020가단144550

-수원지방법원 2021.04.15 2020가단16989

-수원지방법원 2021.04.29 2020가단568343

-의정부지방법원고양지원 2020.06.17 2019가단100489

-인천지방법원 2018.06.22 2018가단7701