(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2020.05.13 2018나70624

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2020.05.13 2018나70624

건물명도 등

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

purport:

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On March 200, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant, who was a branch of the land (hereinafter “instant building”) under which the Plaintiff set the monthly rent of KRW 3,000,000,000, as stated in the separate sheet owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant building”) to the Defendant without a rental deposit.

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). Since then, around 2002, the Plaintiff received deposit of KRW 300,000,000 from the Defendant and reduced the monthly rent of KRW 1,50,000.

B. Although the Defendant used the instant building as a residence of the principal or his family, it did not pay monthly rent to the Plaintiff once a month.

C. On the other hand, the Plaintiff returned KRW 33,00,000 out of the above security deposit to the Defendant upon the Defendant’s request that the money be urgently needed on February 12, 2003.

On March 23, 2017, prior to the filing of the instant lawsuit, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a content-certified mail demanding that “the remainder rental deposit was extinguished by the deduction of the aggregate of overdue rents, and subsequent payment is a sealed car, and deliver the instant building,” and the said mail was served to the Defendant on March 27, 2017.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, 7, 12, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4 (including a tentative number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the facts of the determination as to the cause of the claim, the instant lease agreement was lawfully terminated on March 27, 2017, where the content-certified mail containing the Plaintiff’s declaration of termination on the ground that the overdue rent would reach at least two (2) years, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff and pay the unpaid rent and unjust enrichment equivalent to the unpaid rent.

Furthermore, the defendant.

유사 판례

-의정부지방법원 고양지원 2017.01.19 2016가단13676

-전주지방법원 2017.12.19 2017가단11447

-서울남부지방법원 2017.12.29 2017가단244607

-창원지방법원 2014.12.16 2014가단14187

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.05.07 2018가단24149