logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 제주지방법원 2020.12.18 2020가단60910
건물인도
Text

The Defendant, as the Plaintiff

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

(b) from July 15, 2020 to the delivery in the Schedule.

Reasons

C On July 10, 2018, the term of the contract is set from July 15, 2018 to July 14, 2020, and leased a building listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as “instant house”) to the Defendant as the KRW 4.5 million per annum. C was dead on February 1, 2019, and the Plaintiff solely succeeded to the instant house due to an agreement division among its inheritors, and the fact that the Defendant occupied and used the instant house until the date of the closing of argument can be recognized by either the parties or by the purport of the entire statement and the entire pleadings as stated in the separate sheet No. 1, 2-1, 2-2.

According to the above facts, C’s status as a lessor was succeeded to the Plaintiff, and the period of the lease contract expires on July 14, 2020, the Defendant is obligated to transfer the instant real estate to the Plaintiff and return the unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent calculated at the rate of KRW 375,00 per month from July 15, 2020 to the day following the expiration date of the lease term (i.e., 4., KRW 4.5 million per annum ± 12).

In regard to this, the defendant, for about 15 years prior to C with C's consent, accepted general internal facilities, such as a kitchen, clothes, and toilets of the instant house, and claimed that the expenses required therefor may be paid KRW 5 million from the plaintiff to the house of this case, considering the fact that the expenses required therefor are eight million. However, there is no evidence that the expenses alleged by the defendant constitute necessary expenses, and according to the evidence No. 1 (a contract), the defendant should be deemed to have waived the right to claim reimbursement of beneficial expenses that the defendant agreed to return the instant house to its original state at the time of termination of the lease contract, and therefore, the defendant cannot be deemed to have any right to claim reimbursement against

The plaintiff's claim is reasonable and accepted.

arrow