(영문) 의정부지방법원 2015.11.27 2015가단9240

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) 의정부지방법원 2015.11.27 2015가단9240

건물명도

Text

1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) deliver the buildings listed in the separate sheet;

(b) pay 3,057,142 Won;

2. The plaintiff.

Reasons

1. On August 27, 2013, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a lease agreement to raise the lease deposit amount of KRW 10,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 300,000, and the lease period from October 7, 2013 to October 7, 2014: Provided, That from November 7, 2014 to November 7, 2017, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a lease agreement to raise the lease deposit of KRW 400,000 per month.

The Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to renew the lease contract at the time of termination of the above lease contract, and as prescribed in the above lease contract, from November 7, 2014 to November 7, 2017, the lease contract was set at KRW 400,000, and the lease period from November 7, 2017.

On the other hand, the Defendant paid the rent by June 6, 2014, and the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the termination of the lease contract by content-certified mail on March 3, 2015 on the grounds of the Defendant’s delinquency in rent, and around that time, the Defendant reached the above content-certified proof.

[Grounds for recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. Since the above lease contract was terminated upon the plaintiff's notice of termination of the lease contract, the defendant is obligated to deliver the building of this case to the plaintiff.

B. From June 7, 2014 to November 6, 2014, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the rent of KRW 1,500,000 per annum (300,000 per month x 5 months) and the rent of KRW 1,557,142 per month from November 7, 2014 to March 3, 2015, from March 3, 2015 (40,000 x 35/28) plus KRW 3,057,142 per month.

C. The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff claiming a return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent is insufficient to recognize the fact that the Defendant uses or benefits from the instant building after the termination of the said lease contract. There is no other evidence to acknowledge this. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim for return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent is without merit.

3. If so, the plaintiff's claim is justified within the above scope of recognition.

유사 판례

-창원지방법원밀양지원 2016.04.05 2015가단4452

-춘천지방법원속초지원 2014.06.25 2013가단4090

-인천지방법원 2016.04.28 2015가단72216

-대전지방법원 2016.05.12 2015가단36522 (1)

-청주지방법원 2015.08.12 2015가단106202