logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2019.12.05 2019나53938
건물인도 등
Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the defendant (Counterclaim) against the main lawsuit exceeding the amount ordered to be paid below.

Reasons

1. The plaintiff filed a claim for return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the overdue rent, etc. under the lease agreement. The defendant filed a counterclaim to recover unjust enrichment due to excessive collection of electric utility charges, and filed a claim for return of unjust enrichment due to the use of the second floor operation power. The court of first instance partly accepted the main claim, and the remaining main claim and counterclaim claims were dismissed.

As to this part of the claim against the plaintiff among the main claim, the defendant appealed only for the part against the defendant among the main claim and the claim for return of unjust enrichment due to excessive collection of electric utility fees among the counter-claim, and thus, the scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the claim for return of unjust enrichment due to excessive collection of electric utility fees among the main claim

2. Basic facts

A. Lease 1) The plaintiff between the plaintiff and the defendant 1) On January 19, 2005, the plaintiff is a building on the ground C's ground factory of Ansan-gu, the defendant on January 19, 2005.

) Of the third floor 400 square meters (hereinafter “instant factory”).

(2) On January 29, 2015, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a contract for the extension of the lease term with the term of KRW 52,00,00, monthly rent of KRW 5,200,000, and the term of the lease term of February 13, 2007, with the contents of the special agreement on the lease term of KRW 52,00,000, and the term of the lease term of February 13, 2007, entered into a contract for the extension of the lease term of KRW 6,160,00 as the previous lease term of KRW 52,00.

On February 28, 2016, the above lease agreement was explicitly renewed even after the expiration of the term.

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). 3. However, the defendant is more than 2 years thereafter.

arrow