(영문) 대구지방법원 포항지원 2017.04.20 2016가단8693

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) 대구지방법원 포항지원 2017.04.20 2016가단8693

건물인도등

Text

1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) Of the buildings listed in the separate sheet, each point is indicated in the separate sheet No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 1.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On June 5, 2016, the Plaintiff leased 60 square meters of store (A) part of the attached Form No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 1 (hereinafter “instant store”) to the Defendant, among the buildings listed in the attached Form No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 1, the lease deposit amount of KRW 300,000,000,000,000,000 from June 5, 2016 to June 4, 2018.

(hereinafter “Lease of this case”). (b)

The Defendant paid only rents up to August 2016 while being transferred the instant store, and notified the Plaintiff of the termination of the instant lease agreement on September 2, 2016.

C. On September 7, 2016, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a certificate of content that “the Plaintiff would simultaneously return the lease deposit with the delivery of the instant store,” premised on the termination of the instant lease agreement.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1-4 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above determination on the cause of the claim, it is reasonable to view that the instant lease contract was terminated around September 2016.

Therefore, barring special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant store to the Plaintiff, and is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 700,000,000,000,000 (i.e., KRW 350,00,000,000,000) in arrears or unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent in arrears (i.e., KRW 350,000,000) and the amount calculated by the ratio of KRW 350,000,00 per month from November 5,

(1) The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff’s claim for the return of the lease deposit and the Plaintiff’s claim for the rent and rent, etc., but the Plaintiff’s claim for the payment of the amount equivalent to the instant store’s delivery and rent, etc. is not included in the subject of the judgment of the court). 3. The Defendant’s claim regarding the Defendant’s claim on March 1, 200, is not entitled to comply with the Plaintiff’s claim for rent, etc., on the ground that there is a defect to the extent that it can not be used due to mycoin

유사 판례

-창원지방법원 진주지원 2021.02.10 2019가단7682

-대구지방법원 2019.09.18 2018가단7464

-인천지방법원 2018.09.13 2016가단56648

-서울동부지방법원 2016.11.08 2016가단125737

-대전지방법원 서산지원 2018.02.22 2017가단54185