logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2018.09.19 2018가단3257
건물명도
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 10,773,395 as well as 5% per annum from June 2, 2018 to September 19, 2018 to the Plaintiff.

Reasons

Facts of recognition

On October 10, 2017, the Plaintiff leased No. 402 of the fourth floor of the Seo-gu Daejeon Building to the Defendant.

The lease term is until October 9, 2019, the deposit is KRW 10 million, and the monthly rent is KRW 2 million (including additional tax, KRW 10 million on the 10th day of each month).

The defendant did not pay rent only once when he occupied and used the above building by taking over it from the plaintiff.

The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendant seeking delivery of the building and payment of rent on the ground of the termination of the lease agreement, and the Defendant delivered the said building to the Plaintiff on June 2, 2018, when the instant lawsuit was pending.

The Defendant did not pay the management fee of KRW 4,188,168 and the electricity fee of KRW 1,036,840 until the delivery date of the building and paid it by the Plaintiff.

[Grounds for recognition] In light of the facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6-3, and the facts of the above recognition as to the ground for a claim as to the purport of the entire pleadings, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff the unpaid rent of 15,548,387 won [=200,000 won x (7 months 24/31 days x (7 months 24/31 days)] less the lease deposit of 10,000 won which the plaintiff is entitled to deduction from the plaintiff. 5,548,387 won (the reason for difference between the amount claimed by the plaintiff and the amount claimed by the plaintiff is that the plaintiff was calculated erroneously for one month, and the unpaid management fee was calculated on a daily basis by applying the error of 31 days and 30 days in the last month) 4,188,168 won, unpaid electricity fee of 1,036,395 won, and delay damages from June 2, 2018 to 15.

Therefore, the claim of this case is accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remainder is dismissed as there is no reason.

arrow