logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 울산지방법원 2015.06.11 2014가합7519
건물명도
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On December 7, 2011, the Plaintiff leased each real estate listed in the separate sheet to the Defendant as KRW 300,000,000, KRW 47,000,000 per month of rent (payment on January 1), and KRW 2 years from January 1, 2012 to December 31, 2013 during the lease term.

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). B.

On December 31, 2013, the Plaintiff changed the said lease agreement with the Defendant into KRW 44,00,000 (including additional tax) per month, and renewed the lease term by two years from January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2016.

C. On February 12, 2014, the Plaintiff was in arrears with the Defendant’s three or more vehicles, and the same year.

3.11.o.s.;

5.26.Woman;

6. On July 1, 2014, the Defendant urged the Defendant to pay the unpaid rent, and issued a certificate to the effect that the instant lease contract is terminated, and was served to the Defendant around that time.

On March 31, 2015, the Plaintiff received each real estate listed in the separate sheet from the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of evidence A1 to 7, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the party's assertion

A. The summary of the argument (i.e., the Plaintiff’s Defendant: (a) from February 2014 when the instant lease contract was terminated; (b) from February 1, 2014, it was difficult to use and benefit from each of the above real estate indicated in the separate sheet to the Plaintiff for 14 months; and (c) obtained unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent; and (d) suffered damages equivalent to the same amount

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 316,00,000 (=44,000,000 x 14 months) less KRW 300,000,000 of the lease deposit of this case (=616,00,000 - 30,000,000) and damages for delay.

Shed Defendant had obtained the consent of the Plaintiff during the term of the instant lease, and thus, he exercised his right to demand the purchase of accessory materials, and the Plaintiff has terminated the instant lease agreement.

arrow