logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 부천지원 2018.10.26 2018가단107314
건물명도(인도)
Text

1. The Plaintiff:

A. The Defendants are classified into Section 1, Section 1, Section 2, Section 3, Section 4, and Section 1, among the first floor of the building listed in the separate sheet.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On May 8, 2014, the Plaintiff leased the part of the building indicated in the order owned by the Plaintiff to Defendant B, KRW 5,000,000, and KRW 350,000 from the same day to June 15, 2016, and delivered it to the said Defendant.

B. Defendant B did not pay rent for the period after September 15, 2017, and the Plaintiff terminated the said lease to the said Defendant after March 29, 2018. The said Defendant used the instant building parts even thereafter, and Defendant C also occupies the said building parts.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap 1, 2, and the purport of the whole pleading

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above facts, the above lease contract was lawfully terminated.

The plaintiff as owner is obligated to deliver the part of the building of this case to the defendants, and the defendant B is obligated to pay the rent of 300,000 won per month from September 15, 2017 to the completion date of delivery of the above part of the building.

B. As to this, Defendant B asserts that, since the above building does not have a water meter for each household, unjust enrichment that the Plaintiff received from the above Defendant was returned to KRW 180,00,00 and thus, Defendant B reserved the payment of rent.

However, there is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff received water supply fees from Defendant B without any legal ground, so the above Defendant’s above assertion is without merit without any need to examine further.

(3) The Defendant did not appear on the date of pleading and did not submit any evidence. However, even if the above Defendant’s receipt of the instant case was based on evidence Nos. 1 through 3, it is difficult to recognize the above assertion). 3. Accordingly, each of the instant claims against the Plaintiff’s Defendants are with merit.

arrow