(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.10.12 2018가단11839

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 2018.10.12 2018가단11839

건물인도 등

Text

1. The defendant points out of the one-story of the real estate in the attached list to the plaintiff each point of the indication 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1 of the attached drawings.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On June 15, 2016, the Plaintiff concluded a lease agreement with the Defendant on the instant building and renewed it again, and finally, concluded a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) by setting the deposit amount of KRW 20,000,000 on June 15, 2016, monthly rent of KRW 1,300,000 (excluding value-added tax), and by July 24, 2018 during the period.

B. On January 24, 2018, the Defendant delayed payment of rent and value-added tax for six months as of January 24, 2018, but paid KRW 1,430,000 on January 31, 2018, and KRW 2,420,00 on February 28, 2018.

C. On March 7, 2018, the instant warden, which concluded the instant lease agreement on the grounds of overdue rent, was served on the Defendant on March 7, 2018.

After that, the defendant paid the rent by July 24, 2018, including KRW 3,430,000 on March 30, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 7, purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts of the determination as to the cause of the claim, the instant lease agreement was duly terminated on March 7, 2018, on which the duplicate of the complaint of this case was served to the Defendant, and on which the amount of the rent was served on March 7, 2018. Therefore, barring special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff and pay the Plaintiff the amount of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent of KRW 1,430,00 per month from July 25, 2018 to the delivery date of the instant building.

(3) The judgment on the Defendant’s assertion on the following grounds: (a) even if all payment was made after the termination of the instant lease agreement, the validity of the termination shall not be terminated:

A. The alleged building is real estate located within the project implementation district of the CHousing Reconstruction Project Association, and the ownership of the building of this case is transferred to CHousing Reconstruction Project Association and thus the plaintiff loses its eligibility for plaintiff, and thus, it cannot be claimed against the defendant for the delivery of the building of this case and the overdue rent, etc.

B. (1) Determination is made by a lessor during the term of a lease agreement.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원안산지원 2015.02.12 2014가단22642

-광주지방법원 2015.10.06 2015가단12081

-서울동부지방법원 2020.12.15 2019가단12764

-수원지방법원 평택지원 2018.12.06 2018가단5640

-서울남부지방법원 2018.08.16 2017가단218875 (2)