logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 천안지원 2018.07.18 2017가단111471
건물명도(인도)
Text

1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) paid KRW 1,919,851 to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and its related amount from January 26, 2018 to July 18, 2018.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On November 16, 2011, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant on the lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with the Defendant, setting the Defendant a deposit of KRW 10 million, monthly rent of KRW 500,000,000, and the period from November 21, 201 to November 20, 201 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). On the same day, the Plaintiff received KRW 1 million down payment from the Defendant.

B. The instant lease agreement is renewed and continued, and the Defendant’s refusal to renew was terminated on November 20, 2017.

C. On November 27, 2017, the Defendant, upon having corrected the entrance door of the instant real estate, went to the director, and on January 25, 2018, notified the Plaintiff of the password of the said entrance.

【In the absence of any dispute, Gap 2, 3 evidence, Eul 1, the purport of the whole pleadings】

2. Determination as to the claim on the principal lawsuit

A. As to the unpaid rent and claim for damages equivalent to the unpaid rent, 1) The rent that the Defendant should have paid to the Plaintiff for six years from November 21, 2011 to November 20, 2017, where the instant lease contract continued, is a total of 36 million won (=50 million won x 72 months). The Plaintiff was paid a total of 33.93 million won from the Defendant, barring any special circumstance, and barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff unpaid rent of 2.7 million won (=36 million won - 33.93 million won).

B) Although the Defendant asserts that he paid all the rent by the end of the lease term, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant paid the Plaintiff the money exceeding the above KRW 33930,000,000. Thus, the above argument by the Defendant is without merit. 2) The Defendant’s actual use of the instant real estate by the Defendant is up to November 27, 2017, but it is until January 25, 2018 to maintain the status of the Defendant’s possession of the instant real estate by setting up the entrance door to correct the said real estate, and restricting the Plaintiff’s entry.

arrow