(영문) 대전지방법원서산지원 2020.06.24 2020가단799

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) 대전지방법원서산지원 2020.06.24 2020가단799

건물인도 등

Text

1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) Of the real estate listed in the separate sheet, the indication of the Attached Form(1), (2), (3), (4), and (1) shall be as follows.

Reasons

1. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire pleadings as to the ground for claim Nos. 1 through 6, the Plaintiff’s lease of part of 36 square meters in the ship (hereinafter “instant house”) to the Defendant, on February 19, 2018, with the lease deposit of KRW 1 million, monthly rent of KRW 330,000,000,000 from February 19, 2018 to February 19, 2019, the lease was extended, but the lease was not received as tea from the Defendant from September 20, 2019, and the Plaintiff’s delivery of the instant complaint to the Defendant on the ground that the lease was terminated by delivery of the complaint on the ground that the lease was terminated by the Plaintiff’s declaration of intention on the ground that the lease was terminated by delay, and the fact that the complaint was served on the Defendant on March 25, 205.

According to the above facts, since the above lease contract was lawfully terminated around March 25, 2020, the defendant is obligated to deliver the house of this case to the plaintiff and pay rent or unjust enrichment at the rate of KRW 330,000 per month from September 20, 2019 to the completion of delivery of the house of this case.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The defendant's assertion that the defendant cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim for the following reasons.

1) On or after February 20, 2019, rent was reduced to KRW 200,000. (2) The Plaintiff’s paint caused KRW 4.5 million to the vehicle owned by the Defendant, as a result of the Plaintiff’s painting work, in which the paint was set off on the vehicle owned by the Defendant, and the Plaintiff agreed to pay KRW 2 million among them.

3 The plaintiff is obligated to pay the director's expenses to the defendant.

B. There was an agreement on the reduction of rent claimed by the Defendant solely with the statement of No. 1 on the judgment No. 1

The defendant's above assertion is without merit, since it is not sufficient to recognize the occurrence of automobile damages or director's expenses, or the plaintiff's obligation to pay them.

3. Conclusion.

유사 판례

-대구지방법원포항지원 2020.02.11 2019가단5817

-대전지방법원서산지원 2019.08.28 2019가단1567

-대전지방법원서산지원 2019.05.01 2018가단55680

-서울서부지방법원 2019.01.17 2018가단10572

-서울북부지방법원 2015.04.16 2014가단31209