(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2020.10.28 2019나56816

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 2020.10.28 2019나56816

건물명도(인도)

Text

1. A decision of the court of first instance against the defendant in excess of the following amount ordered to be paid under subparagraph 1-b of Article 1.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On August 31, 2016, the Plaintiff concluded a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with the Defendant, setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 40,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 4,400,000 (including value-added tax; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the period from August 31, 2016 to August 30, 2017.

B. The instant lease agreement was implicitly renewed even after the expiration of the period on August 30, 2017.

C. The Defendant paid the Plaintiff the monthly rent to the police officer of September 2017. From October 2017 to May 2019, the Defendant did not pay the Plaintiff the monthly rent of KRW 83,600,000 (=4,400,000 x 19 x 19 times).

Accordingly, on May 13, 2019, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the termination of the instant lease agreement following the Defendant’s delinquency in the rent due to the content certification, and the Defendant, even after the instant lawsuit was filed, is operating a restaurant in the instant building without paying the monthly rent to the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the facts of the determination on the request for delivery of a building, the instant lease agreement was terminated by the delivery of content-certified mail containing the Plaintiff’s expression of intent to terminate the lease agreement due to the Defendant’s delinquency in rent, or by the delivery of a duplicate of the instant complaint.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff upon the termination of the instant lease agreement.

B. Determination on the overdue rent and the claim for return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the overdue rent 1) The Defendant’s argument as to the overdue rent should be deducted from the overdue rent claimed by the Plaintiff.

B. The 83,600,000 won was the monthly rent that the Defendant had to pay to the Plaintiff from the Haman on October 2017 to the Haman on May 2019.

유사 판례

-인천지방법원 2018.04.25 2017가단235530

-대구지방법원서부지원 2016.04.12 2015가단21251

-수원지방법원 2021.02.05 2019나83212

-청주지방법원제천지원 2017.07.19 2017가단526

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.11.27 2020가단5156198