(영문) 전주지방법원 2016.06.22 2015가단15674

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) 전주지방법원 2016.06.22 2015가단15674

건물인도 등

Text

1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) deliver the buildings listed in the annex;

B. From January 1, 2016, the above buildings are located.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On August 3, 2013, the Plaintiff leased the building in the attached Form (hereinafter “instant building”) to the Defendant, as set forth in the attached Form (hereinafter “instant building”), KRW 100,000,000 per month, KRW 4 million per month, and the period from August 22, 2013 to August 31, 2015 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). The Defendant, based on the instant lease agreement, has operated a special photographic point with the trade name “C” from the instant building.

According to the instant lease agreement, the lessee does not change the purpose or structure of the instant building without the lessor’s consent, and where the lessor or lessee fails to perform the contract, the other party may be notified in writing and the contract may be rescinded.

B. around April 2014, the Defendant made a roof by putting a sandd position panel on the space between the outer wall of the instant building and the wall, and made it possible to make materials, warehouses, kitchens, and toilets within the roof (hereinafter “instant extension”), and paid KRW 4 million per month until December 31, 2015 under the name of the vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence 1-2, Gap evidence 2-3, Gap evidence 4-1-1 to 12, Gap evidence 6-1 to 11, Gap evidence 7, and 8, the fact-finding to the head of Jeonju City, the result of the on-site verification of this court, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s judgment on the cause of the claim terminated on August 31, 2015, as the instant lease agreement was terminated on the expiration of the period, or the Defendant, without permission, terminated the instant lease agreement on the ground that the extended part of the instant building was constructed and used, and thus, the Defendant delivers the instant building to the Plaintiff, and 2.2 million won, which is the difference between the rent already paid from September 1, 2015 to December 31, 2015 and the rent equivalent to the rent of 4.63 million won per month, and the amount of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent of 4.63 million won per month from the following day to the completion date of delivery of the building.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.11.15 2018가합535608

-수원지방법원 2020.06.24 2019가합23735

-인천지방법원부천지원 2015.02.04 2014가합8430

-부산지방법원 2016.09.08 2016가단15644

-대전지방법원 2016.05.12 2015가단17354