logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2018.09.07 2018나51803
부당이득금
Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. The grounds for appeal by the plaintiff and the defendant citing the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the allegations in the court of first instance, and the evidence submitted to the court of first instance is not presented to this court, and even if the evidence submitted to this court is presented, the fact-finding and judgment of the court of first instance except for the judgment on the "request for the return

Therefore, the court's explanation on this case is based on the following 2. The 4th 6th 6 to 5th 8th 8 of the judgment of the court of first instance in relation to the determination of "the claim for return of unjust enrichment of monthly management expenses". The 7th 1st 6th 1 to 6th 6th 7th 1 of the judgment of the court of first instance in relation to "the theory" is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance in addition to the 7th 1st 1st 6th 6th 6th 2nd

2. Determination on a claim for return of unjust enrichment of monthly management expenses

A. As seen earlier, the indication of the object of the instant lease agreement is indicated as “489 square meters of the leased area of 6 stories (148 square meters)” and “management expenses” are determined as KRW 4,000 per square meter (excluding value-added tax), and refers to the ordinary repair expenses of the building and the cleaning service expenses.

It is recognized that the defendant received every month management expenses of KRW 651,200 calculated by the plaintiff as the average 4,400 won per 148 square meters during the period of the instant lease agreement.

However, the following circumstances recognized by the purport of Gap's 1, 3 through 10, 17 through 20, 29, and Eul's 1 through 17 (including various numbers) and the whole purport of pleadings are consistent with the empirical rule to view that the lease area under a usual lease agreement includes the area of a section for exclusive use and the area of a section for common use, and that the ordinary monthly management fee is determined not only by the section for exclusive use but also by the whole cost necessary for the building management including the section for common use.

arrow