(영문) 울산지방법원 2016.04.15 2015가단30229

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) 울산지방법원 2016.04.15 2015가단30229

건물명도 등

Text

1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) In the attached list (Ⅰ), among the 591.26§³ of the 1st floor of the building, the annexed list (Ⅱ), 1, 2, 1.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On October 15, 2014, the Plaintiff leased the leased deposit amount of KRW 15,00,000, monthly rent of KRW 15,500,000, and the lease period of May 15, 2015, to the Defendant, as indicated in the attached list (Ⅰ) No. 591.26,00 square meters on the first floor of the building (Ⅱ), which are linked each point of Section 1, 2, 3, 4, 1, and 92 square meters on the ship (hereinafter “Defendant occupied portion”).

B. Since May 15, 2015, monthly rent was set at KRW 1,700,00 (Additional Tax Map).

C. The Defendant on June 15, 2015, and the same year

7.15. Divers

8. On August 15, 2015, the Plaintiff paid the monthly rent to the Plaintiff on August 19, 2015, and the monthly rent was overdue on September 15, 2015 and October 15 of the same year.

On October 16, 2015, the Plaintiff sent a content certification and text message to the Defendant on the ground that the said three-time overdue delay was made.

2. According to the above facts of recognition, the lease agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant between the Defendant is deemed to have been terminated on October 16, 2015 according to the Plaintiff’s notice of termination due to delay in rent at least three times a month by the Defendant.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to order the Plaintiff to occupy the part of the Defendant’s possession and pay the Plaintiff the amount of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent of KRW 1,870,00 per month from November 15, 2015 to the completion date of delivery of the said part of possession.

In this regard, the defendant paid the overdue rent within 2-3 months from the date of delinquency, and thus the plaintiff's claim is contrary to the social norms. However, the defendant's claim cannot be viewed as contrary to the social norms, on the sole basis of the reasons alleged by the defendant. Therefore, the above argument by the defendant is without merit.

3. The plaintiff's claim of this case is justified.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.05.01 2017가단5116190

-대전지방법원 2017.01.11 2015가단207386

-수원지방법원성남지원 2019.05.23 2019가단200736

-창원지방법원진주지원 2016.05.25 2015가합11642

-전주지방법원 2016.05.26 2015가단19041