(영문) 창원지방법원진주지원 2016.02.18 2015가단7905

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) 창원지방법원진주지원 2016.02.18 2015가단7905

건물명도 등

Text

1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) deliver the real estate listed in the separate sheet;

B. India from July 29, 2015

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On December 30, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with the terms that the Plaintiff leases real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant building”) to the Defendant as KRW 50,000,000 during the period from December 30, 2014 to December 29, 2016 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

Accordingly, the defendant paid 50,000,000 won to the plaintiff as security deposit, and received delivery from the plaintiff.

B. On July 28, 2015, the Plaintiff and the Defendant drafted a written confirmation of the termination of the lease agreement (Evidence A No. 3) and the content are as follows:

① The instant lease contract is terminated upon agreement, and ② the Defendant does not file a civil lawsuit in connection with the instant lease contract (no objection is raised against the conclusion of the lease contract with a third party after the date thereof). ③ The Plaintiff shall immediately refund the amount calculated by deducting unpaid management expenses, electricity charges, water charges (settlement under the reference of notice), real estate brokerage fees (2,00,000), and real estate brokerage fees (3,000,000) from the amount of deposit 50,000,000.

C. Accordingly, on July 28, 2015, the Plaintiff paid KRW 44,741,760 to the Defendant, deducting the unpaid management expenses from the deposit.

However, the defendant does not transfer the building of this case to the plaintiff and has possessed it up to now.

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts of the determination as to the Plaintiff’s cause of claim, the instant lease agreement terminated on July 28, 2015.

Therefore, the Defendant should deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff, and pay unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent calculated at the rate of KRW 2,00,000 per month from July 29, 2015 to the completion date of the above delivery.

As seen below, it is reasonable that the Defendant has become due as of the date of the closing of the argument in this case.

유사 판례

-창원지방법원진주지원 2016.02.18 2015가단34556

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.05.17 2016가단53709

-서울동부지방법원 2015.05.28 2015가단5560

-청주지방법원제천지원 2019.08.14 2019가단421

-수원지방법원 2015.07.16 2015가단6049