(영문) 대전지방법원홍성지원 2015.02.24 2014가단10441

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) 대전지방법원홍성지원 2015.02.24 2014가단10441

공사대금

Text

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. On June 19, 2001, the Daejeon District Court, Bocheon-si, Daejeon District Court, the registration of ownership transfer was completed as of June 19, 2001, and there was a building listed in the separate sheet used as a police station on the above land (hereinafter “instant building”). On January 19, 2006, the registration of ownership transfer was completed as of January 19, 2006 by the State (National Police Agency) as of January 1480 as of January 20, 2006, the registration of ownership transfer was completed as of January 20, 2006 with the same registry office No. 1480, the registration of ownership transfer was completed for the Defendant’s future transaction. The Plaintiff did not specify the period from the Defendant around 202 as to the instant building and entered the lease agreement as at KRW 500,000,500 without the deposit, or there is no dispute between the parties to the agreement.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the instant building, which was used as a police station after the lease contract of this case, was executed to repair and maintain the said building so that it can obtain approval for use as a commercial building, and paid approximately KRW 25,00,000 as the construction cost.

As a result, since the building of this case increased its objective value after obtaining approval for use, the defendant is obligated to return to the plaintiff the beneficial cost equivalent to the above construction cost or unjust enrichment.

Furthermore, by preventing the Plaintiff from using the instant building, the Defendant neglected the duty to use and benefit from the instant lease agreement, and thereby incurred damages equivalent to the said construction cost to the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff a reasonable amount of the above construction cost as compensation for damages caused by nonperformance.

B. Each entry of Gap evidence No. 3 and evidence No. 4-1 and No. 2 in the judgment of 1 beneficial cost or claim for unjust enrichment; and

유사 판례

-대전지방법원 2015.09.15 2015나3431

-수원지방법원 2020.07.02 2019나62284

-부산지방법원 2017.07.06 2016가단40831

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.06.03 2014가합50109

-수원지방법원 2015.10.20 2015가단13207