logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원동부지원 2019.04.24 2018가단8714
건물명도(인도)
Text

1. The defendant shall pay 2,640,000 won to the plaintiff.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. The costs of the lawsuit.

Reasons

1. Indication of claim;

A. On January 16, 2018, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant for the lease deposit of KRW 5,00,000, monthly rent of KRW 880,000 (including value-added tax, monthly rent of KRW 16,00 (including value-added tax), and from January 16, 2018 to January 15, 2019.

B. From around that time, the Defendant received delivery of the instant building and operated the management consulting company with the trade name “C”, and paid to the Plaintiff KRW 880,000 on January 17, 2018 (monthly rent), KRW 880,000 on February 26, 2018 (monthly rent), and KRW 880,000 on March 22, 2018 (monthly rent).

C. The Defendant, around June 2018, decided to terminate the said lease agreement between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff as of July 15, 2018, and delivered the instant building to the Plaintiff on July 15, 2018.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the rent of KRW 2,640,000 (the rent for three months from April 16, 2018 to July 15, 2018).

2. Judgment by public notice of applicable provisions of Acts (Article 208 (3) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act);

3. Part 3 of the dismissal

A. While the Plaintiff seeking delivery of the instant building against the Defendant, the Plaintiff was a person who was delivered the instant building from the Defendant on July 15, 2018 at the first date for pleading, the claim for this part cannot be accepted.

B. After July 16, 2018, the portion of the claim for unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent or rent is also sought from the Plaintiff from July 16, 2018 to the date of completion of delivery of the building of this case. However, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff received delivery of the building of this case from the Defendant on July 15, 2018 (the Plaintiff and the Defendant appears to have agreed on the lease contract at that time according to the record on the evidence No. 5), and thereafter, there were circumstances that the Defendant occupied the building of this case and gained substantial benefits by using the building in accordance with its original purpose.

arrow