logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원 정읍지원 2017.03.23 2016가단12531
건물명도
Text

1. The defendant shall receive KRW 2,353,920 from the plaintiff and at the same time indicate the attached real estate to the plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On October 5, 2011, the Plaintiff leased a building indicating the attached real estate (hereinafter “instant building”) to the Defendant by setting the deposit of KRW 10,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 1,200,000, and the period of October 12, 2016.

B. The Defendant did not pay to the Plaintiff KRW 6,00,000 for five months from June 2016 to October 2016 (i.e., KRW 1,200,000 x five months) and the sum of public charges, such as electric charges and water supply and drainage charges incurred on the instant building during that period.

C. On July 11, 2016, the Plaintiff, via content-certified mail, declared the Defendant the “declaration of refusal to renew the contract,” and on October 19, 2016, declared the “declaration of intention to terminate the contract due to delay in rent.”

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1-7 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above facts of recognition, the lease relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant terminates due to the expiration of the period on October 12, 2016, barring any special circumstance, and thus, the defendant is obligated to deliver the building of this case to the plaintiff at the same time upon receiving payment of KRW 2,353,920 (= KRW 10,000,000 - KRW 6,600,000 - 1,646,080), which deducts the rent and public charges due from the deposit from the plaintiff.

B. The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that the payment of the above unpaid rent and public charge totaling KRW 7,646,080 (=6,000,000) is separately claimed, and that “The Defendant is obligated to pay unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent even during the period after October 20, 2016, which was after the termination of the lease relationship, and the amount should be deducted from the deposit to be returned to the Defendant by the Plaintiff.”

However, according to the above facts of recognition, the plaintiff is obligated to return the deposit amount of KRW 10,00,000 to the defendant. Accordingly, according to the defendant's defense, the above plaintiff's claim of KRW 7,646,080 is set off against part of the defendant's claim of KRW 7,646,080

In addition, the Plaintiff.

arrow