logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원여주지원 2019.06.19 2018가단6756
건물인도등
Text

1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) deliver the second floor office 206.63 square meters of real estate listed in the attached list;

B. 20,919.

Reasons

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. According to the evidence No. 2 of this case’s extradition request, on March 22, 2016, the Plaintiff acknowledged that the Plaintiff leased the instant lease contract to the Defendant on April 9, 2019, with a deposit of KRW 10,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 1,500,000, and the lease period of KRW 1,50,000, and from April 22, 2016 to April 21, 2020 (hereinafter “the lease”). The fact that the Plaintiff’s duplicate of the instant complaint stating the Plaintiff’s intent to terminate the instant lease contract on the grounds of overdue payment for more than 16 years, reaches the Defendant on April 9, 2019 is apparent in the record.

Since the instant lease agreement was lawfully terminated on April 9, 2019, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant office to the Plaintiff.

B. From the conclusion of the instant lease contract to November 21, 2018, the unpaid rent of the instant lease is 24,000,000 won (1,50,000 won x 16 months) and the unpaid rent is 6,919,354 won [6,00,000 won (1,50,000 won x 4 months) x 4 months) from November 22, 2018 to April 9, 2019, which is the date of termination of the instant lease contract, from November 22, 2018. The Plaintiff is a person who has deducted the unpaid rent of KRW 10,00 from the above unpaid rent to April 9, 2019.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff unpaid rent of KRW 20,919,354 ( KRW 24,000,000) ( KRW 6,919,354 - KRW 10,000,000).

C. The Plaintiff sought the return of unjust enrichment from April 10, 2019, the day following the termination date of the lease contract to the day of delivery completion of the Defendant’s office of this case.

However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant gains a substantial benefit while using and earning the instant office in accordance with its purpose even after the termination of the lease agreement (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da59481, Apr. 11, 2003). The above assertion is rejected.

2. The plaintiff's claim is justified within the scope of the above recognition.

arrow