logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2020.10.30 2019나39564
건물명도(인도)
Text

Of the part concerning the counterclaim of the first instance judgment, the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) who exceeds the following amount ordered to pay.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court on this part of the basic facts is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and therefore, it is accepted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. As to the principal claim

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Defendant leased the instant real estate, which was originally used for the original office, and used the instant real estate for the purpose of using it by changing its usage to its own business. The Defendant failed to implement the instant real estate for the purpose of restoring it to its original state as at the time of eviction as stipulated in the instant lease agreement, and the Plaintiff spent KRW 10,420,000 for the removal of the instant real estate and the construction cost for restitution on behalf of the Defendant.

The costs (1,600,000 won) indicated in the evidence No. 1 (E) cited by the Defendant are merely the amount limited to the removal work, not the entire restoration work.

Meanwhile, from August 10, 2018 to March 10, 2019, the Defendant paid 8,820,000 won out of rent and management expenses for seven months from March 10, 2019.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 4,240,00,000 (= KRW 10,420,000) minus KRW 15,00,000, which the Plaintiff should return to the Defendant.

B. First of all, we examine whether the cost of restoring the instant real estate to be borne by the Defendant was paid by the Plaintiff on behalf of the Plaintiff, and its amount is up to 10,420,000 won, and when the lessee returns the leased object to the lessor, the lessee, in principle, should remove the parts of the repair and alteration so that it can be used at the time of lease.

However, the contents and scope of the duty to restore shall be considered in consideration of the details and contents of the lease contract, the state of an object at the time of lease, the lessee accepted or changed.

arrow