logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 춘천지방법원강릉지원 2019.09.24 2019가단339
건물명도(인도)
Text

1. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) paid KRW 6,123,836 to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and against this, from May 3, 2019 to September 24, 2019.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On October 10, 2013, the Plaintiff leased one story (hereinafter “instant real estate”) among the buildings listed in the separate sheet to the Defendant by determining the deposit amounting to KRW 10 million, monthly renting KRW 400,000,000, and the lease period as October 9, 2015.

B. The Defendant completed business registration with the trade name of “E” in the instant real estate and operated a sports product sales business.

C. The Defendant paid a deposit of KRW 10 million to the Plaintiff, and paid the rent to the Plaintiff only for January and May 2, 2018.

【Reasons for Recognition: Each entry in Evidence A Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings】

2. Determination on the main claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the lease contract of this case was terminated by delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case, as the Defendant did not pay the monthly rent of 11,000,000 won until January 2019. Thus, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant real estate to the Plaintiff, and to pay unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent calculated at the rate of KRW 4,400,000 per month from January 10, 2019 to the delivery date.

B. The Defendant’s defense that the Defendant delivered the instant real estate to the Plaintiff on October 11, 2018. However, the video of the evidence No. 3 alone is insufficient to recognize the fact that the Defendant delivered the instant real estate at the said time, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

However, the plaintiff is also a person who received the real estate of this case from the defendant on June 25, 2019, which was after the filing of the lawsuit of this case. Thus, this part of the plaintiff's assertion seeking the delivery of the real estate of this case is without merit.

C. As seen earlier, the Defendant’s judgment on rent and unjust enrichment claim is identical to the fact that the Defendant paid only two-month rent after 2018, and barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay the amount of rent or unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent, calculated at the rate of KRW 400,000 per month from January 10, 2018 to June 25, 2019, which delivered the instant real estate.

For this reason,

arrow