(영문) 창원지방법원 2017.01.13 2016가단13850

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) 창원지방법원 2017.01.13 2016가단13850

건물명도

Text

1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) 6th accommodation facilities and 6th floor of reinforced concrete structure slive slive roof located in Kimhae-si D.

Reasons

1. In fact, the Plaintiff is the owner who purchased 6th floor of reinforced concrete structure slive slive roof and amusement facilities (hereinafter “instant building”) owned by Kim Sea-si, Kimhae-si, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on April 15, 2015.

From E, the previous owner of the instant building, the Defendant is a person who was engaged in the business of “F” in the name of “F” on the part (A) size of 127.17 square meters in the ship (hereinafter “the leased portion”) connected each point of the said building, among the 1st basements of the instant building, the following: (a) from E, the previous owner of the instant building; (b) the 10,000,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 1,800,000 (including value-added tax) and the term of lease from June 14, 2014 to June 14, 2016.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant lease agreement.” From June 2015, the Plaintiff conducted remodeling works for the exterior of the instant building from around June, 2015, and as a result, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to reduce the Plaintiff’s monthly rent from June 1, 2015 to February 29, 2016 to KRW 1,100.

Since May 1, 2015, the Defendant paid only KRW 3,200,000 to the Plaintiff, including KRW 600,000 on February 22, 2016, KRW 1,100,000 on May 9, 2016, KRW 1,000 on June 1, 2016, KRW 50,000 on June 10, 2016, and KRW 50,000 on June 10, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 6 (including additional number), the purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the facts of the above recognition as to the cause of the claim, the instant lease contract was terminated upon the termination of the contract or the expiration of the period due to the Defendant’s delinquency in rent.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the leased part of the instant building to the Plaintiff, and is obligated to return the overdue rent and unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent from the date of the completion of delivery of the said building.

As to the scope of the rent and unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent that the Defendant pays, the Defendant paid.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.04.27 2016가단114581

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.10.08 2015가합4448

-서울동부지방법원 2019.10.02 2017가단114239

-울산지방법원 2016.09.22 2015나21448

-창원지방법원 2020.10.22 2020가단103705