logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원여주지원 2019.07.10 2018가단6794
방실인도
Text

1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) Of the real estate listed in the separate sheet, each point is indicated in the separate sheet No. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1.

Reasons

1. The Plaintiff is obligated to transfer the instant real estate to the Plaintiff and pay unjust enrichment equivalent to the unpaid rent and rent, on the ground that the lease contract on the part (A) part (C; hereinafter “instant real estate”) of the attached Form Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1 among the real estate listed in the attached Form Nos. 1, 3, 4, and 1 is terminated by the delivery of a duplicate of the instant complaint. Thus, the Defendant is obligated to transfer the instant real estate to the Plaintiff and pay the Defendant unjust enrichment equivalent to the unpaid rent and rent.

2. Judgment by service (Article 208 (3) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act).

3. On May 7, 2018, the Plaintiff seeking the return of unpaid rent and unjust enrichment from the rent-generating date, starting from May 7, 2018, from the date the delivery of the instant real estate was completed.

From May 7, 2018 to May 8, 2019, the lease termination date (the delivery date of the copy of the complaint in this case) from May 7, 2019, the unpaid rent of 3,619,354 won (30,000 won x 300,000 won x 2/31 of December x 300,000 won, and the Plaintiff sought payment of the amount calculated at the rate of 400,000 won per month. However, even according to the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Plaintiff’s claim for payment of money exceeding the rate of 300,000 won per month is not accepted. Thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay the said unpaid rent to the Plaintiff.

However, there is no evidence to prove that the Defendant, from May 9, 2019 following the day following the day when the lease contract is terminated, gains a substantial benefit while using and earning the instant real estate according to its purpose (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da59481, Apr. 11, 2003). The Defendant’s claim for the return of unjust enrichment from May 9, 2019 to the day when the delivery of the instant real estate is completed is rejected.

arrow