logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.11.15 2015가단166622
건물명도
Text

1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) deliver the eight-story 345.49 square meters above ground among the real estate listed in the attached list;

(b) 4,529,786.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On April 10, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a lease contract with the Defendant for a lease deposit of KRW 40,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 11,000,000 (including management expenses, surtax separate), and for a lease term of KRW 24 months from April 15, 2015 (hereinafter “instant lease contract”), among real estate listed in the attached Table list, and delivered the instant real estate to the Defendant on April 15, 2015.

B. On November 9, 2015, the Defendant did not pay two or more parts of the tea stipulated in the instant lease agreement, and the Plaintiff received from the Defendant a letter of agreement from the Defendant that “The instant lease agreement shall be terminated even if it was paid 14,000,000 won until November 14, 2015, and if it is not implemented on one occasion, it shall be paid 14,000 won.”

C. The Defendant paid KRW 10,000,000 to November 14, 2015 after the formation of the instant written consent, and failed to implement the contents of the said written consent.

The sum of the rent that the Defendant paid to the Plaintiff is KRW 76,470,214.

Although the defendant asserts that total amount of KRW 116,470,214 was paid, the same year from April 3, 2015

6. 40,000,000 won paid until 30.30 seems to be the payment of the lease deposit.

The amount claimed by the defendant is generally consistent with the amount of entry in the claim submitted by the plaintiff.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 8, Eul evidence No. 3 (including provisional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s judgment as to the cause of claim reduced the claim’s claim by claiming only the amount of money claim on the last date for pleading and unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent, and the Defendant made a simultaneous performance defense as to the lease deposit. Therefore, the judgment is based on this premise.

According to the above facts, the above facts of recognition are examined.

arrow