logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원천안지원 2019.11.21 2019가단109168
건물명도(인도)
Text

1. The defendant is against the plaintiff (appointed party), the appointed party C, and the appointed party D:

(a) Of the factory of the first floor of the building listed in the attached list;

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the appointed parties C, and D (hereinafter “Plaintiffs”) are co-owners of the buildings listed in the separate sheet, and around July 19, 2017, a part of 9 square meters (hereinafter “instant real estate”) of the attached sheet among the first floor of the instant building (hereinafter “instant real estate”) connected the Defendant in sequence with each point of (i), 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 1, and (ii) a lease deposit amount of KRW 5,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 60,000 (excluding value-added tax) and the lease term of KRW 60,000 (excluding value-added tax) from July 19, 2017 to July 19, 2019.

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). B.

The Defendant used the instant real estate by taking over it from the Plaintiffs pursuant to the instant lease agreement, and did not pay rent after February 1, 2019 due to business suspension, and possessed it until now.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, since the lease contract of this case was terminated at the expiration of the period, the defendant is obligated to pay rent and unjust enrichment calculated at the ratio of 220,000 won [the amount of value added tax of 60,000 won] x 1/3 each month from February 1, 2019 to the completion date of delivery to the plaintiffs.

B. The Defendant asserted that there was no obligation to pay rent after March 2019, since the Defendant agreed to terminate the instant lease agreement with the Plaintiffs around February 2019, but there is no evidence to acknowledge the termination of the lease agreement as alleged by the Defendant. Therefore, the Defendant’s above assertion is difficult to accept.

3. The plaintiff (appointed party)'s claim of this case is justified.

arrow