(영문) 광주지방법원 2018.12.05 2018가단3859

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) 광주지방법원 2018.12.05 2018가단3859

건물인도

Text

1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant B shall deliver 100.69 square meters per floor among the buildings listed in the attached list, and KRW 12,90,000 and October 2018.

Reasons

1. As to the claim against the defendant B

A. On June 7, 2014, between the Plaintiff and Defendant B, a lease agreement was concluded between the Plaintiff and Defendant B (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with respect to KRW 5,00,000,000 and monthly rent of KRW 700,000 on the first floor among the buildings listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant building”).

The building of this case is owned by Defendant C from the time of the conclusion of the lease agreement to the present day, and is operated by the restaurant.

【Defendant B paid the monthly rent according to the instant lease agreement by June 2016, and did not pay the monthly rent thereafter.

The rent in arrears of Defendant B from July 2016 to September 2018 is KRW 17,90,000.

Applicant, on May 24, 2017 (1), the Plaintiff notified the Defendant B of the termination of the lease agreement on the grounds of the rent delay, respectively.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 4-1, 2, 3, and Gap evidence 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the above recognition of the Plaintiff’s claim, it can be seen that the instant lease contract was terminated on the ground of Defendant B’s delinquency in monthly rent.

Therefore, Defendant B is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff unjust enrichment calculated at the rate of KRW 12,90,000,000 as the remainder, which the Plaintiff seeks to deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff and deducts KRW 5,000,000 from the rent of KRW 17,90,000,000, and the monthly rent of KRW 700,000 from October 30, 2018 until the delivery of the instant building.

C. Defendant B’s assertion and determination thereof (i.e., the instant lease agreement) asserted that Defendant B cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s request for extradition as it set the term until the redevelopment of the instant building was conducted under the lease agreement.

According to the evidence No. 1 of this case, it is recognized that the special terms of this case’s lease agreement include “not later than redevelopment”.

However, the above special agreement is concluded by Defendant B.

유사 판례

-서울동부지방법원 2016.06.14 2015가단35011

-인천지방법원 2018.01.17 2017가단24075

-부산지방법원 2016.07.13 2015가단75199

-서울서부지방법원 2015.12.16 2015가단218160

-서울남부지방법원 2018.04.27 2017가단32743