logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원평택지원 2015.01.13 2014가단13926
건물명도 등
Text

1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

A. To deliver real estate listed in the separate sheet, KRW 3,865,155, as well as its related amount.

Reasons

1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the evidence evidence Nos. 1 through 5, the Defendant concluded a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with the Defendant by setting the deposit amount of KRW 10,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 550,000 (prepaid on January 13, 2014), and the period from January 13, 2014 to January 13, 2015 (hereinafter “the instant lease agreement”). ② After the instant lease agreement, the Defendant reached the Defendant’s delivery of the lease agreement with the following: (a) monthly rent of KRW 3,30,000,00 and KRW 565,155,565,550; and (b) the Plaintiff’s delivery of the lease agreement to the Defendant around August 13, 2014.

2. According to the facts of the above recognition, the instant lease contract was terminated and terminated on July 2014, and even thereafter, the Defendant occupied the instant apartment and obtained profit equivalent to the monthly rent and suffered damage equivalent to the amount of the said rent from the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant apartment to the Plaintiff, and pay 3,865,155 won in total of the rent and management expenses unpaid until August 13, 2014, and 20% per annum from October 29, 2014 to the day of complete payment, which is the following day after the date of payment, on which the copy of the instant complaint was served to the Defendant, as requested by the Plaintiff, as the result of the payment, and to pay the unjust enrichment equivalent to the monthly rent calculated at the rate of 50,000 won per annum from August 14, 2014 to the day of completion of delivery of the instant apartment or the day of loss of the Plaintiff’s ownership.

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

arrow