(영문) 전주지방법원군산지원 2015.02.05 2014가단9019

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) 전주지방법원군산지원 2015.02.05 2014가단9019

소유권에 기한 부동산인도 등

Text

1. The Defendant shall deliver to the Plaintiff the real estate indicated in the attached list, and deliver the said real estate from August 20, 2013.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On July 5, 201, the Plaintiff, the owner of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) concluded a lease agreement between the Defendant and the Defendant (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with a lease deposit of KRW 5,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 350,000 (payment in advance on July 20, 201), and the lease term of the instant real estate was set from July 20, 201 to July 19, 201 to lease and lease the instant real estate (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

B. On July 4, 2011, the Defendant paid KRW 5,000,000 to the Plaintiff, and received the instant real estate in accordance with the instant lease agreement. D having a relationship of relationship with C, the representative director of the Defendant, has kept the office fixtures, etc. of the instant real estate until the day of closing the argument.

C. After paying the Plaintiff the rent by August 19, 2013, the Defendant did not pay the rent after August 20, 2013. On June 13, 2014, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant that the instant lease agreement was terminated as of July 19, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 6 through 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant real estate to the Plaintiff, and pay the rent or unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent, calculated at the rate of KRW 350,000 per month from August 20, 2013 to the completion date of delivery of the instant real estate (the amount equivalent to the rent after the termination of the instant lease agreement, shall be confirmed to be the same as KRW 350,000 per month, which is the rent under the instant lease agreement).

B. As to this, the defendant asserted that since the existing business operator's domicile remains, the defendant could not open a new business operator's domicile of the real estate of this case, and therefore, the real estate of this case was not properly used.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2017.11.24 2017나61423

-대전지방법원 서산지원 2018.04.24 2017가단6513

-인천지방법원 2021.02.03 2020가단240525

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.10.04 2018가단15602

-수원지방법원 2019.03.21 2018나82182