(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2016.10.28 2016나2905

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) 서울서부지방법원 2016.10.28 2016나2905

건물명도등

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On October 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with the Defendant to lease KRW 24 months for the lease period, KRW 5 million for the lease deposit, and KRW 525,000 for the monthly rent (the monthly rent was adjusted to KRW 55,000 for the Defendant’s failure to pay part of the deposit, and the monthly rent was adjusted to KRW 55,000 for the lease period) with respect to the portion (A) size of 23.3 square meters in the attached drawings among the real estate listed in the attached list owned by the Plaintiff among the real estate listed in the attached list owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

B. From August 2015, the Defendant did not pay monthly rent at a time more than twice, or did not pay part or all of the monthly rent. On January 21, 2016, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant that the instant lease contract was terminated on the ground of the delinquency in rent at least twice (hereinafter “instant termination notification”), and sought delivery of the leased object.

C. After filing the instant lawsuit, the Defendant paid rent to the Plaintiff by May 15, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap's entries in Gap's 1 through 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts of the judgment on the ground of the Plaintiff’s claim, the instant lease agreement is deemed to have been lawfully terminated by the Plaintiff’s notice of termination. Thus, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the leased object of this case to the Plaintiff, and to pay the Plaintiff the amount of unjust enrichment equivalent to the amount of rent calculated at the rate of KRW 55,00 per month from May 16, 2016 to the completion date of delivery of the leased object of this case.

(However, there is no dispute over the fact that the defendant paid the overdue charge ex post, and thus, the remaining part of the plaintiff's claim in this case exceeding the above-mentioned part shall not be accepted).

유사 판례

-서울서부지방법원 2016.06.10 2016가단2867

-서울서부지방법원 2016.04.22 2015가단28800

-서울동부지방법원 2015.03.03 2014가단122369

-인천지방법원 2015.06.10 2014가단83264

-창원지방법원통영지원 2016.01.12 2015가단7465