logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.05.09 2017가단85130
건물인도등 청구의 소
Text

1. The Plaintiff:

A. The Defendants deliver two floors among the buildings listed in the attached Form;

B. Defendant B Co., Ltd. shall be 11,954

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On May 27, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant B”) on the second floor (hereinafter “instant real estate”) of the real estate indicated in the separate sheet between June 7, 2016 to June 6, 2017, with the lease deposit amounting to KRW 30 million, monthly rent of KRW 2,300,000, and management fee of KRW 400,000.

(hereinafter referred to as “the instant lease agreement”). (b)

Defendant B used the instant real estate by obtaining delivery from the Plaintiff in accordance with the instant lease agreement, and partially sublet it to Defendant C with the Plaintiff’s consent.

C. Meanwhile, Defendant B did not pay the sum of KRW 11,954,140 as follows.

1) Unpaid amount of KRW 2,991,010 in November 2016 (2), 2,986,940 in June 2017) 2,98,00 in July 2017 (2,98,590 in July 2, 2017) 2,987,60 in August 2017

D. Accordingly, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendants a certificate of content as of September 18, 2017, and expressed his intent to terminate the instant lease agreement on the grounds of the rent delay. Around that time, the Plaintiff’s declaration of intent reached the Defendants.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 to 3 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts of recognition, the instant lease agreement was lawfully terminated and terminated, and the right to lease was also extinguished by the extinguishment of the right of lease that forms the basis thereof.

Therefore, the Defendants are obligated to deliver the instant real estate to the Plaintiff, and Defendant B is obligated to pay the amount calculated at the rate of KRW 2,700,000 (=2,300,000) per month as unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent from October 1, 2017 to the completion date of delivery of the instant real estate, as sought by the Plaintiff, from October 1, 2017 to October 2, 300,000).

3. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow