(영문) 의정부지방법원 2014.08.22 2014가단23331

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) 의정부지방법원 2014.08.22 2014가단23331

부당이득금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff leased part of the first floor among the 4th floor of Dobong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Building to the Defendants at KRW 40 million, monthly rent of KRW 1 million. On October 10, 1996, the Plaintiff leased to the Defendants the entire first floor of the above building (hereinafter “instant store”) at KRW 75 million, monthly rent of KRW 190,000.

However, the Defendants did not pay the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 35 million out of the above lease deposit until March 15, 2008, which ordered the store of this case as well as immediately after the order.

In addition, the Defendants did not pay to the Plaintiff the sum of KRW 1,530,000,000 for the rent of September 1, 1996 and October 1, 1996, KRW 1,90,000 for the rent of November 1, 1996 and KRW 1,1,40,000 for the rent from July 2, 2007 to December 12, 200.

Therefore, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff the remainder of the lease deposit and the remainder of the overdue rent of KRW 50,30,000,000,000 to the Plaintiff, and even if not, the Defendants made a false statement that they would pay the remainder of the lease deposit to the Plaintiff and used the store of this case without paying the said money. Therefore, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff the said money with damages or unlawful

2. First of all, even if Defendant C is the lessee of the instant store, and based on the written statement No. 1-1 and No. 2, it can be recognized that the lessee of the instant store is Defendant B. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion against Defendant C on a different premise is without merit without further review.

Furthermore, Defendant B did not additionally pay the lease deposit as asserted by the Plaintiff.

There is no evidence to acknowledge the failure to pay monthly rent, i.e., whether there is any overdue charge

Even if the plaintiff was not paid the remainder of the lease deposit, the lease deposit shall be paid as long as the lease relationship is terminated as at present.

유사 판례

-대구지방법원 2015.01.27 2013가단50166

-수원지방법원안산지원 2019.10.30 2019가단58592

-창원지방법원 통영지원 2018.04.25 2017가단26651

-창원지방법원 진주지원 2017.02.09 2016가단3696

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.05.08 2014가단5299063