(영문) 수원지방법원성남지원 2017.12.13 2017가단10670

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) 수원지방법원성남지원 2017.12.13 2017가단10670

건물인도 및 임료

Text

1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

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

B. From April 22, 2017, the above A

subsection (b).

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On March 30, 2015, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with the Plaintiff to lease each of the following terms: (a) the building listed in the separate sheet owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant building”) from the Plaintiff as KRW 10,000; (b) the rent is KRW 1,200,000 per month; and (c) the lease term is from April 23, 2015 to April 23, 2016 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

B. Since the Defendant did not pay the rent in April 2017, the Defendant continued to pay the rent until now.

C. On May 29, 2017, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a certificate of content that the instant lease agreement is terminated on the grounds of the delinquency of rent for at least two years (hereinafter “instant content certification”). Around that time, the instant content certification was served on the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5 (including each number in the case of additional number), 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 of this case was lawfully terminated at the time when the certificate of content of this case, stating the Plaintiff’s declaration of intent to terminate the lease contract for reasons of delinquency in rent for more than two years, was delivered to the Defendant. Thus, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the building of this case to the Plaintiff, and to pay rent or unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent of 1,200,000 won from April 22, 2017 to the date when the delivery of the building of this case was completed, which was sought by the Plaintiff, after the Defendant started to delay rent.

B. The Defendant’s assertion 1) The Defendant asserts that the repair was requested to the Plaintiff, but the Plaintiff did not pay the tea by rejecting the request, as the part of the main floor was changed due to the pipe leakage of the lower part of the main part of the building of this case.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원성남지원 2017.05.17 2016가단24788

-부산지방법원동부지원 2017.05.17 2016가단15954

-울산지방법원 2019.01.23 2018가단9981

-의정부지방법원 2017.10.18 2017가단6191

-서울남부지방법원 2016.08.19 2015가단64968