logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.10.13 2015가단5059781
건물명도
Text

1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) deliver the real estate listed in the separate sheet;

(b) From February 26, 2015, KRW 200,000 and February 26, 2015

Reasons

1. The judgment on the cause of the claim is that the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant on February 26, 2012 with regard to the term of use of real estate listed in the separate sheet for the period from February 25, 2014 to February 25, 2014, with the lease deposit of KRW 10,000,000 per month, and rent of KRW 600,00 per month, and at least twice per month, with the right of termination of the contract (hereinafter “instant lease”). The instant lease agreement was explicitly renewed for two years from February 26, 2014, and the Defendant did not pay the rent for the month following January 26, 2014, and the Defendant notified the Defendant of the termination of the instant lease agreement on February 25, 2015 without dispute between the parties concerned.

According to the above facts, since the instant lease contract was lawfully terminated due to the Defendant’s violation of the Defendant’s obligation to pay monthly rent, the Defendant is obligated to deliver to the Plaintiff real estate listed in the separate sheet, which is the object leased, and the amount calculated by deducting deposit of KRW 10,00,000 from the monthly rent of KRW 10,200,000 until February 25, 2015, and the amount calculated by deducting the deposit of KRW 10,000 from the deposit of KRW 10,000,000 from February 26, 2015 until the delivery of real estate listed in the separate sheet from February 26, 2015, is obligated to return to the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment.

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

arrow