(영문) 부산지방법원동부지원 2016.07.07 2016가단3906

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) 부산지방법원동부지원 2016.07.07 2016가단3906

건물명도등

Text

1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) Category 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1, respectively, of the real estate listed in the separate sheet.

Reasons

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. 1) On June 24, 2015, the Plaintiff and the Defendant indicated on the attached list, among the first floor of the real estate listed on the attached list, the part (A) and 36 square meters in the ship (hereinafter “instant building”) connected each point in sequence with the Defendant, and the first floor of the real estate listed on the attached list, connected with each point of 1, 2, 3, 4

(2) On June 24, 2015, the Defendant concluded a lease contract with the term of 2,000,000 won for the lease deposit, 150,000 won for the rent, and from June 24, 2015 to June 24, 2017. (2) Around June 24, 2015, the Defendant paid only KRW 1,000 out of the above lease deposit to the Plaintiff and paid only KRW 50,000 for the rent.

3) The Plaintiff indicated, through the instant complaint, the Defendant’s intent to terminate the lease agreement on the grounds that the lease deposit and the unpaid rent were not paid, and the duplicate of the instant complaint was served on March 29, 2016 to the Defendant on the grounds that there was no dispute [based on recognition], Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including a serial number), and the purport of the entire pleadings.

B. According to the facts of the above recognition, the instant lease agreement was lawfully terminated, and the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff, and to pay unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent calculated by the ratio of KRW 150,000 per month from March 26, 2016 to the completion date of delivery of the instant building, as sought by the Plaintiff.

2. The Defendant alleged that the Plaintiff and the lease deposit agreed to use KRW 1,000,000, out of the Plaintiff and the house repair cost, but there is no evidence to acknowledge the agreement.

Therefore, the defendant's argument about this is without merit.

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

유사 판례

-서울북부지방법원 2017.06.13 2016가단41019

-수원지방법원 2016.11.02 2016가단8936

-서울북부지방법원 2017.06.27 2017가단3762

-의정부지방법원 2018.07.12 2017가단22636

-서울남부지방법원 2019.09.04 2019가단5332