(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2015.04.09 2014가단47475

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) 서울동부지방법원 2015.04.09 2014가단47475

건물명도 등

Text

1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

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

B. From July 2, 2014, the foregoing paragraph (a) is described.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. C, on May 5, 2013, in which the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) was jointly owned by 1/2 shares, C, and D, on which May 5, 2013, deposited KRW 10 million, monthly rent of KRW 600,000, and its duration from May 2, 2013 to May 1, 2014, have been leased to the Defendant.

B. On December 24, 2013, the Plaintiff purchased the instant real estate from C and D and acquired the registration of ownership transfer on December 27, 2013, and succeeded to the lessor’s status of the said lease agreement after completing the registration of ownership transfer.

C. Around that time, the Plaintiff leased the instant real estate to the Defendant for one year from May 2, 2014. On June 30, 2014, the Defendant paid KRW 5 million out of the deposit increased to the Plaintiff.

Since July 2, 2014, the defendant delayed to pay a rent for the period of time after July 2, 2014; the same year, on which the plaintiff expressed his/her intention to terminate the lease contract on

9. The complaint of 30.30. was served on the defendant on October 28 of the same year.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, obvious fact in records, Gap 1-3, the purport of the whole pleading

2. According to the above facts, the above lease contract was terminated upon the delivery to the defendant of the complaint of this case on the ground that the defendant did not pay two or more vehicles, and the above lease contract was terminated.

As such, the defendant is obligated to deliver the real estate of this case to the plaintiff and pay the amount of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent or rent in proportion to the rate of KRW 600,000 per month from July 2, 2014 to the delivery date of the above real estate.

3. According to the conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are without merit.

유사 판례

-서울북부지방법원 2015.06.10 2014가단42292

-서울서부지방법원 2016.06.09 2016가단201077

-춘천지방법원강릉지원 2015.02.12 2014가단202062

-인천지방법원부천지원 2015.04.07 2014가단48349

-서울남부지방법원 2015.11.06 2015가단37089