(영문) 창원지방법원 밀양지원 2018.10.17 2018가단1010

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) 창원지방법원 밀양지원 2018.10.17 2018가단1010

건물인도등

Text

1. The Defendant shall deliver to the Plaintiff one story of 106.83 square meters among the buildings listed in the attached Form.

2. The defendant shall pay 70,000 won to the plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On March 31, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a lease contract (hereinafter “instant contract”) with the Defendant, setting the deposit amount of KRW 8 million, KRW 450,000 per month (payment on April 20), and the period from April 20, 2015 to April 19, 2018.

B. Article 5 of the instant contract provides, “If the lease term expires, the lessee (the Defendant) shall restore the said real estate (the instant store) to its original state and deliver it to the lessor (the Plaintiff).”

C. From March 2016, the Defendant did not pay the Plaintiff rent, and currently used the instant store.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5, and purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. 1) The Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into the instant contract, and the Defendant did not pay rent from March 2016, as seen earlier, it is clear that the Plaintiff expressed his intention to terminate the instant contract through the instant complaint to the Defendant on the grounds of overdue rent, and that the instant complaint has reached the Defendant. According to the above facts of recognition, the instant contract was terminated on the grounds of the Defendant’s delayed rent, barring any special circumstance, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant store to the Plaintiff. 2) As to this, the Defendant asserted that: (a) the Plaintiff did not unilaterally raise the rent of KRW 70,00,000 to the Plaintiff, and (b) the Defendant would receive KRW 32,50,000 for the interior cost of the instant store.

However, even if the increase in rent is unfair and invalid, it cannot be deemed as a reason to avoid paying the rent at all, and ② the test cost of the Defendant’s assertion is not a beneficial cost, and even if so, it constitutes a beneficial cost.

Even when the object of lease is returned under Article 5 of the instant contract.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2014.11.27 2014가단15244

-인천지방법원 2015.05.15 2014가합12450

-대구지방법원 2018.10.19 2017가단125815

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.07.11 2016가단5005248

-대전지방법원서산지원 2015.06.24 2015가단1965