(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.03.31 2015가단112601

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 2016.03.31 2015가단112601

건물명도 등

Text

1. The defendant

(a) Appendix 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 7, among the first floor of the building listed in the separate sheet;

Reasons

1. Assertion and determination

A. In addition to the purport of the argument in the evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the Plaintiff, the owner of the building listed in the separate sheet, as the owner of the building listed in the separate sheet, agreed on November 8, 2013 on the portion (A) of 30.5 square meters in the ship (hereinafter “instant house”) connected each point in sequence 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 1, and 30.5 square meters in the ship, which was connected in sequence 1, 200, 400, 400, monthly rent, and 400,000 from November 15, 2013 to November 14, 2015. The Defendant began to use the instant house on the following grounds: (a) on the first floor of the building, it can be recognized that the Plaintiff’s intention to terminate the instant lease agreement was not paid for each of the following reasons: (b) on October 15, 2014.

B. According to the above facts, the lease contract of the instant house between the Plaintiff and the Defendant was lawfully terminated by the Plaintiff’s notice of termination on September 1, 2015, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant house to the Plaintiff, and to pay the Plaintiff the rent or unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent calculated at the rate of KRW 400,000 per month from October 15, 2014 to the completion date of delivery of the said house.

C. As to this, the Defendant asserted to the effect that, unlike the initial promise, the Plaintiff, a lessor, did not newly duplicate the instant house, and that the Plaintiff did not demand repair due to the destruction of or damage to the instant housing facilities, such as the entrance and exit, impulse, portrait, and bathing room, etc., and that the Plaintiff could not comply with the Plaintiff’s claim on the ground that the Plaintiff failed to faithfully perform his/her duty as a lessor, such as the settlement of water rate was not properly performed. However, even if the Plaintiff did not faithfully perform his/her duty as a lessor as alleged by the Defendant, such circumstance alone is insufficient.

유사 판례

-대구지방법원 2016.02.18 2014나12353

-수원지방법원 성남지원 2018.10.18 2018가단229266

-인천지방법원 2020.11.27 2019가합65220

-광주지방법원해남지원 2015.02.10 2013가단5142

-춘천지방법원 원주지원 2018.01.24 2016가단584