logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.06.16 2015가단5198662
건물명도
Text

1. The defendant delivers to the plaintiff real estate stated in the attached list, and pays KRW 56,00,000 to the plaintiff.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On August 30, 2013, the Plaintiff: (a) leased the part of the real estate listed in the attached list (hereinafter in this case’s real estate) on the first, second, and rooftop to the Defendant as KRW 70,000,000,000 from September 1, 2013 to August 31, 2014; (b) KRW 10,000,000,000,000 for the monthly rent; and (c) KRW 7,070,000,000 for the third (the name of the lessee in the lease contract is the name of the Defendant’s child C); and (d) from August 20, 2013 to August 19, 2014; and (e) KRW 22,2,200,000,000 for the monthly rent.

(hereinafter referred to as the "Lease of this case")

The Plaintiff and the Defendant renewed the instant lease on September 2014, and the rent was set at KRW 9.6 million per month for the entire real estate from September 2014.

C. Since September 2014, the Defendant delayed the payment of monthly rent. When the overdue rent exceeds about four months, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit around June 23, 2015, and around that time, a copy of the instant complaint containing the Plaintiff’s declaration of intent to terminate the lease of this case was served on the Defendant.

The monthly rent paid by the Defendant to December 21, 2015 after September 2014 is 54,830,000 won in total.

E. At the closing of the argument of the instant case, the Defendant discontinued the restaurant business that had been operated between the instant real estate and the instant real estate.

[인정근거] 다툼 없는 사실, 갑 1, 5호증, 갑 2, 3호증의 ㅎ각 1, 2의 각 기재

2. According to the facts of the above recognition as to the Plaintiff’s claim, since the lease of this case was terminated due to the Defendant’s delinquency in rent, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant real estate subject to the lease to the Plaintiff, as the Plaintiff seeks, and the unjust enrichment from September 2014 to April 2016 from April 2016 is recognized as the rent. However, on May 2016, it is difficult for the Defendant to recognize that the amount of unjust enrichment after the Defendant’s suspension of restaurant business on the instant real estate is the rent amount.

arrow