(영문) 부산지방법원 2015.03.06 2014가단83346

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) 부산지방법원 2015.03.06 2014가단83346

건물명도 등

Text

1. The defendant shall receive KRW 30,000,000 from the plaintiff, and at the same time, the second floor of the building stated in the attached Form from the plaintiff is 58.

Reasons

In light of the facts without dispute, Gap 1 and 3’s respective entries and the purport of the entire pleadings, the plaintiff, on October 13, 2013, leased a deposit of KRW 30 million, monthly rent of KRW 100,000 to the defendant on the second floor of KRW 58.86 square meters (hereinafter “the instant house”) from among the buildings attached to the defendant, and around that time, received KRW 30,000,000 from the defendant. The defendant can be found to have delayed payment of rent from June 13, 2014, and it is evident that the copy of the instant complaint stating the purport that the lease contract was terminated on the grounds of rent delay for at least two years by the plaintiff was served on the defendant on October 31, 2014.

Therefore, the above lease contract was terminated on October 31, 2014, barring any special circumstance. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to receive deposit of KRW 30 million from the Plaintiff and deliver the instant house to the Plaintiff at the same time, and to pay the Plaintiff rent or unjust enrichment at the rate of KRW 100,000 per month from June 13, 2014 to the completion date of delivery of the said house.

In regard to this, the defendant alleged that the plaintiff was not allowed to pay the rent, but there is no evidence to acknowledge the above argument, so the above argument is without merit.

In addition, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff deceivings the defendant by concealing such fact and entering into a lease agreement despite the fact that the malodor caused by mycoi in spite of the occurrence of water leakage under the wall and decoration of the instant house, but the evidence of the submission of the defendant alone is insufficient to recognize the fact of deception, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise, the above assertion is without merit.

In addition, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff agreed to pay the amount of KRW 30 million with the director's expenses, but there is no evidence to acknowledge such an agreement. Therefore, the above assertion is without merit.

If so, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable.

유사 판례

-춘천지방법원원주지원 2015.04.28 2014가단4315 (1)

-울산지방법원 2019.09.10 2019가단3331

-의정부지방법원고양지원 2015.12.17 2015가단79693

-서울서부지방법원 2017.04.06 2016가단25570

-대전지방법원 2019.01.10 2018가단14448