(영문) 부산지방법원 서부지원 2018.07.11 2018가단1382

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) 부산지방법원 서부지원 2018.07.11 2018가단1382

건물명도등

Text

1. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff.

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

B. 3,450,000 won and April 4, 2018

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On April 4, 2013, the Plaintiff leased a building listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant building”) to the Defendants by setting the lease deposit of KRW 5,00,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 345,00, and the lease period of KRW 345,00, from April 4, 2013 to 12 months (hereinafter “instant lease”).

B. The Defendants did not pay to the Plaintiff the sum of monthly rent of KRW 3,450,00 ( KRW 345,000 x 10 months; hereinafter “instant overdue rent”) from March 2014 to December 10.

C. The Defendants began to pay the Plaintiff the instant overdue charge from January 2015 to March 2018 without paying the monthly rent. D.

Defendant B, on January 2018, filed a complaint with the competent administrative agency, asserting that the instant building, which is an unlawful building, could have been granted a building permit due to the negligence of duties by the public officials of the competent administrative agency.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-2, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 1-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff, as to the Defendants’ defense prior to the merits, terminated the instant lease agreement on the grounds that the Defendants did not pay the overdue charge by the instant lawsuit, and sought unjust enrichment equivalent to the overdue charge or the overdue charge by the date of delivery of the instant building and the completion of delivery of the building.

As to this, the Defendants asserted that the instant lawsuit was unlawful on the ground that Defendant B did not have a ground to terminate the instant lease agreement, on the ground that the instant building constitutes an illegal building, and solely filed the instant lawsuit at the level of retaliation.

As seen earlier, the fact that Defendant B alleged that the instant building owned by the Plaintiff was an illegal building and filed a criminal complaint with the investigative agency may be recognized. However, the Defendants’ considerable amount of money.

유사 판례

-대구지방법원 2019.01.17 2018가단19122

-수원지방법원성남지원 2019.11.29 2018가단239973

-창원지방법원 2019.05.09 2017가단114309

-서울동부지방법원 2020.06.05 2020가단378

-부산지방법원 2018.05.24 2018가단3560