(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.01.21 2014가단115696

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.01.21 2014가단115696

건물명도 등

Text

1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) Appendix 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 7, among the three floors of the buildings listed in the separate sheet;

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On March 19, 2013, the Plaintiff, as the owner of the building indicated in the attached list, entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with the Defendant on the housing size of 80 square meters on the part (A) in the ship connected each point of 1, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 80 square meters (hereinafter “the leased part of the instant building”), among the third floor of the instant building, with the lease deposit paid in full at that time, and resides in the leased part of the instant building.

Lease deposit: From April 22, 2013 to April 21, 2015: KRW 1250,000 per month (excluding value-added tax, and payment on the 21st day of each month).

B. On November 4, 2013, the Plaintiff did not pay the remainder of the rent by paying only three-month rent until November 4, 2013, and the Plaintiff terminated the instant lease by serving a written complaint in the instant case.

C. After filing the instant lawsuit, the Defendant paid a partial overdue charge, and appropriated it to the overdue charge until October 21, 2013, and the Defendant delayed the rent from October 22, 2013.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, each entry of Gap's 1 through 3 (including virtual number) and the purport of whole pleading

2. According to the above facts, the instant lease contract was lawfully terminated through the service of the complaint of this case.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to deliver the leased part of the building of this case to the plaintiff and pay the amount of money calculated by the rate of KRW 1,375,000 per month (including value-added tax) from October 22, 2013 to the delivery date of the above part of the building with overdue rent and unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent in arrears.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.

유사 판례

-제주지방법원 2016.12.09 2016가단2917

-부산지방법원서부지원 2020.04.09 2019가단110269

-수원지방법원 성남지원 2015.10.29 2015고단548

-수원지방법원성남지원 2016.06.10 2015가단33594

-수원지방법원 성남지원 2018.10.18 2018가단229266