logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.12.13 2017가단87488
건물인도 등 청구의 소
Text

1. The defendant

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

(b)payment of KRW 29,450,000;

(c) on April 2017.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

B. The Plaintiff concluded a lease agreement with the Defendant via C, a proxy, to lease the instant real estate to the Defendant by setting the deposit amount of KRW 5 million, monthly rent of KRW 250,000,000, and the period from March 4, 2006 to March 3, 2007.

(hereinafter “instant contract”). C.

The defendant paid a total of 300,000 won over two times in April 2006 and July 2011, but did not pay the rent up to now.

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. It is evident that the duplicate of the instant complaint, indicating the Plaintiff’s intent to terminate the instant contract on the grounds of the Defendant’s delay of rent, was served to the Defendant on October 27, 2017.

Accordingly, the contract of this case was lawfully terminated.

The Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant real estate to the Plaintiff, and pay 29,450,000 won in arrears for 139 months from March 4, 2006 to October 3, 2017 (i.e., KRW 250,00 per month x 139-1,50,000 per month x 300,00 won in advance). The Defendant is obligated to pay unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent calculated by the ratio of KRW 300,00 per month from October 4, 2017 to the completion date of delivery of the instant real estate.

B. As to this, the Defendant asserted that C, an agent of the Plaintiff, is the actual owner of the real estate, and that the Plaintiff did not have the right to seek the delivery of the real estate in this case.

As seen earlier, the Plaintiff’s conclusion of the instant contract through C, which is the Plaintiff’s agent, and considering that the Plaintiff is the owner who completed the registration of ownership transfer of the instant real estate, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

3. The conclusion is that the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow