(영문) 부산지방법원 2016.11.15 2016가단27326

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) 부산지방법원 2016.11.15 2016가단27326

건물인도 등

Text

1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) deliver the second floor 162.47 square meters among the buildings listed in the attached list;

(b) KRW 3,240,000 and April 2016.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On March 23, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant on a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with regard to KRW 2 million, monthly rent of KRW 380,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 380,000, and from March 25, 2015, and delivered the said building portion, among the buildings indicated in the attached Table list with the Defendant.

B. On April 24, 2016, the Defendant’s failure to pay all the Plaintiff the unpaid electricity amounting to KRW 4.94 million and the unpaid electricity amounting to KRW 3,240,000 in total.

C. On June 16, 2016, the complaint of this case, to the effect that the Plaintiff terminated the instant lease agreement on the grounds of the delinquency in rent, was served on the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of whole pleadings

2. According to the facts of the above recognition, since the instant lease contract was lawfully terminated by the Plaintiff’s notice of termination due to the Defendant’s delinquency in rent, the Defendant is obligated to transfer to the Plaintiff the second floor of 162.47 square meters among the buildings indicated in the attached list as restitution, and to pay to the Plaintiff unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent or rent of 3.24 million won (i.e., unpaid rent of KRW 5.2.4 million - lease deposit - lease deposit 2.4 million), and from April 25, 2016 to April 25, 2016, calculated by the ratio of KRW 3.80,000 per month.

In this regard, the defendant argued that the plaintiff did not have the time to prepare for the business, and that it is improper to unilaterally terminate the lease contract without disregarding the defendant's alternative to use part of the leased object as an office instead of the reading room which is the original object of the lease. However, the defendant's argument does not constitute a ground for preventing the legitimate termination of the lease contract of this case.

The defendant's argument is without merit.

3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.11.13 2018가단5147542

-대전지방법원 2020.05.20 2019가단22026

-부산지방법원 2017.04.25 2016가단62084

-대구지방법원 포항지원 2014.09.25 2013고단1340

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.09.24 2019가단5065210