(영문) 대전지방법원 2015.05.14 2013가단15040

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) 대전지방법원 2015.05.14 2013가단15040

건물명도 등

Text

1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) receives KRW 30,000,000 from the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

Reasons

1. The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 4:

The Plaintiff leased the building listed in the attached list (hereinafter referred to as the “instant building”) to the Defendant by setting the deposit amount of KRW 60,000,000 from October 8, 2012 to October 8, 2017, and when the lessee fails to pay rent at least twice continuously, the lessor may immediately terminate the contract.

B. Since then, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to pay KRW 30 million, which the Defendant would not pay KRW 30,000 among the deposit, by February 8, 2013, and, if it fails to perform this, it would convert the deposit into KRW 600,000,000,000 in lieu of the deposit amount.

C. From February 8, 2013, the copy of the instant complaint containing the purport that the Defendant terminated the instant lease agreement on the grounds that the Defendant was in arrears with the payment of the rent up to the date was served on the Defendant on April 18, 2013.

2. According to the above facts as to the principal lawsuit, the lease contract of this case was lawfully terminated by the Plaintiff’s declaration of intent to terminate the contract on the grounds of the Defendant’s delinquency in rent for more than two years.

Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff and pay the amount calculated by applying the rate of KRW 600,000 per month from February 8, 2013 to the completion date of delivery of the said building as unjust enrichment for the rent party.

In this regard, the defendant asserts that his duty to deliver the building of this case and the plaintiff's duty to return 30 million won deposit are related to simultaneous performance.

Since the plaintiff has received KRW 30 million from the defendant as a lease deposit, the duty of delivery and the duty to return the lease deposit are related to the simultaneous performance.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is justified.

The following shall be the defendant.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2018.11.28 2018가합2304

-춘천지방법원강릉지원 2016.06.28 2016가단1515

-서울서부지방법원 2016.03.10 2015나2960

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.02.02 2015가합554356

-수원지방법원성남지원 2019.10.18 2019가단208747