(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2016.10.20 2016가단19845

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) 서울북부지방법원 2016.10.20 2016가단19845

건물인도

Text

1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) Attached drawings (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), and (7), among the first floor of the building stated in the attached list;

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On May 27, 2011, the Defendant entered into a contract with the Plaintiff on the lease of KRW 2,00,000 as deposit money, KRW 2,00,00, monthly rent of KRW 200,00, and period of May 27, 201 as well as KRW 24 months from May 27, 201 to May 27, 201 (hereinafter “instant lease contract”), among the first floor of the building listed in the separate sheet owned by the Plaintiff, and thereafter reside until now.

The instant lease contract has been implicitly renewed at the expiration of the contract term.

B. Meanwhile, the Defendant did not pay rent from May 28, 2015, and on October 2015, the Plaintiff expressed to the Defendant the intent to terminate the instant lease agreement on the grounds of the rent delay.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 and 2 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The instant lease agreement, which judged on the cause of the claim, was lawfully terminated by the Plaintiff’s declaration of termination on the ground of the Defendant’s failure to pay rent more than two years in arrears.

Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant house to the Plaintiff and pay the overdue rent and unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent in arrears calculated by the ratio of KRW 200,000 per month from May 28, 2015 to the completion date of delivery of the instant house.

B. On the summary of the Defendant’s argument 1 regarding the Defendant’s defense, the Defendant: (a) exempted the Plaintiff from the key car and promised to return the deposit to the Defendant as soon as possible on October 2015; and (b) attempted to deliver the instant house to the Plaintiff after newly leasing the house for directors on October 15, 2015; (c) however, the Plaintiff continued to reside in the instant house due to the Plaintiff’s failure to return the deposit without having appeared at the location of the board of directors; and (d) was paid double due to the Plaintiff’s mistake.

유사 판례

-서울서부지방법원 2017.02.10 2016가단247677

-부산지방법원동부지원 2020.10.20 2019가단226823

-서울북부지방법원 2020.07.09 2019가단149983

-부산지방법원동부지원 2014.11.21 2014가단201546

-전주지방법원 정읍지원 2021.03.16 2020가단290