(영문) 창원지방법원 2016.03.18 2015가단21816

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) 창원지방법원 2016.03.18 2015가단21816

건물인도

Text

1. The defendant delivers the building indicated in the attached list to the plaintiff, and each month from December 10, 2015 to the delivery date of the above building.

Reasons

1. On June 2015, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to lease the building indicated in the attached list owned by the Plaintiff to the Defendant by setting the lease deposit of KRW 50 million, monthly rent of KRW 300,000,000, and the lease term from June 10, 2015 to June 9, 2017, but thereafter changed the deposit amount of KRW 20,000,000,000 per month.

The Defendant occupied the instant building in accordance with the instant lease agreement, but did not pay the lease deposit.

In June and July 2015, the Defendant paid to the Plaintiff the amount calculated by converting the unpaid lease deposit into the monthly rent. On October 7, 2015, the Defendant paid the monthly rent to the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendant on the ground that the Defendant did not pay a deposit for lease and did not pay a two or more installments of a deposit for lease, and that the Plaintiff terminated the instant lease agreement and claimed delivery, etc. of the instant building. The duplicate of the complaint was served on the Defendant on November 11, 2015.

After filing the instant lawsuit, the Defendant paid the Plaintiff a three-month difference.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts of the above recognition, the defendant did not pay the lease deposit to the plaintiff and did not pay the lease deposit to the plaintiff more than two years in arrears. The lease contract of this case was terminated thereby.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to deliver the building of this case to the plaintiff and return the money calculated by the ratio of the monthly rent of 600,000 won from December 10, 2015 to the delivery date of the building of this case as requested by the plaintiff as unjust enrichment.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

유사 판례

-대전지방법원 2016.04.14 2015가단224374

-서울남부지방법원 2019.10.10 2019가단205965

-대전지방법원 2019.05.29 2018가단25936

-대구지방법원김천지원 2015.10.15 2015가단4203

-의정부지방법원고양지원 2017.11.29 2017가단12199