(영문) 전주지방법원 2015.05.12 2014가단27687

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 2015.05.12 2014가단27687

건물명도 등

Text

1. The defendant

(a) deliver the buildings listed in the separate sheet;

B. From October 2, 2013, the above buildings.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On July 2, 2013, the Plaintiff leased (hereinafter “the instant lease”) a building indicated in the attached Form (hereinafter “instant building”) to the Defendant by setting the lease deposit of KRW 10,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 650,000, and the lease period from July 2, 2013 to July 2, 2014 (hereinafter “the instant lease”).

B. However, the Defendant did not pay to the Plaintiff only monthly rent of KRW 1,950,00 for three months until October 1, 2013, and the Plaintiff did not pay to the Plaintiff the rent after paying only KRW 1,950,00. The Plaintiff expressed the Defendant’s intent to terminate the lease of this case on the ground of the Defendant’s delayed delay with the instant complaint or the application for modification of the lawsuit filed on April 2, 2015.

【Recognition of Fact-finding】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the facts found above, barring any special circumstance, the termination of the lease of this case by the Plaintiff on the ground of the Defendant’s rent delay is lawful, barring any special circumstance.

Therefore, since the lease of this case was invalidated, the defendant is obligated to deliver the building of this case to the plaintiff and pay the plaintiff the unpaid rent and the amount of unjust enrichment equivalent to the unpaid rent until the time of delivery of the building.

As to this, the defendant is the vehicle paid in addition to the three-month rent, and there is an agreement between the plaintiff and the plaintiff about the replacement, so that the plaintiff cannot respond to the plaintiff's request, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it, the defendant's above assertion is rejected.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff, and pay the Plaintiff the overdue rent or the amount of unjust enrichment from October 2, 2013 to the time of delivery of the instant building at the rate of KRW 650,000 per month.

B. The Plaintiff on the part of the claim for acceptance obligation assumed the Defendant’s obligation of KRW 1,950,000 in arrears for three months against the Plaintiff, a former lessee of the instant building, and the Defendant.

유사 판례

-서울동부지방법원 2016.01.14 2015가단29108

-수원지방법원 2016.01.21 2015가단17155

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.08.09 2015가단184798

-서울북부지방법원 2020.04.02 2019가단14131

-인천지방법원부천지원 2016.04.07 2015가단15841