logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 2019.02.13 2018가단13489
건물명도
Text

1. From 10,00,000 won to 10,000 won, the Defendant shall each month from July 1, 2018 to 200,000 won for the delivery of real estate listed in the separate sheet.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On May 30, 2017, the Defendant leased real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant store”) from the Plaintiff from the Plaintiff during the period from May 30, 2017 to May 30, 2020, with a deposit of KRW 10 million, monthly rent of KRW 1,00,000, and the period from May 30, 2017 to May 30, 2020.

B. From July 1, 2018, the Defendant delayed the payment of monthly rent, and up to now, the Defendant operated the restaurant at the instant store.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the lease contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant with respect to the instant store was lawfully terminated by the delivery of a duplicate of the instant complaint containing the Plaintiff’s intention of termination due to the Defendant’s delinquency in rent, barring special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant store to the Plaintiff, and pay rent or unjust enrichment at the rate of KRW 1,00,000 per month from July 1, 2018.

B. As to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s claim before receiving the deposit from the Plaintiff. The fact that the Plaintiff received KRW 10,00,000 from the Defendant is as seen earlier. As such, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant store to the Plaintiff at the same time as receiving the remainder after deducting overdue rent and unjust enrichment from the Plaintiff after July 1, 2018.

B. The Defendant asserts that he cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s claim before the Plaintiff settled the value-added tax evaded by the Plaintiff, the Defendant’s increase in income tax, and the premium. However, the Defendant did not have any legal basis to seek the settlement of the increase in value-added tax and income tax, and according to the written evidence No. 1, it stated in the lease contract that “the premium is irrelevant to the lessor.”

C. In conclusion, the Defendant delivered the instant store from July 1, 2018 to KRW 10,000,000 from the Plaintiff.

arrow