(영문) 수원지방법원안산지원 2019.04.03 2018가단58724

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) 수원지방법원안산지원 2019.04.03 2018가단58724

손실보상금

Text

1. Of the instant lawsuit, the part of the claim for overdue rent of KRW 1.5 million shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On February 22, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant, which stipulates a deposit of KRW 3.5 million, monthly rent of KRW 500,000,000, and the term of lease from February 21, 2016 to February 20, 2017, with respect to Mai-si (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

B. The Plaintiff asserted that, against the Defendant, the Defendant did not pay KRW 1.65 million in total in January, March, September, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit claiming delivery of the instant real estate and payment of KRW 1.65 million in total due to the termination of the said lease agreement. On June 26, 2018, the Suwon District Court: “The Defendant received KRW 3.5 million from the Plaintiff; at the same time, delivered the instant real estate to the Plaintiff; and the Defendant paid KRW 1.65 million in total to the Plaintiff; and the said judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

【Reasons for Recognition】 The descriptions of Evidence Nos. 1, 4, and 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination:

A. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant delayed payment of the rent of KRW 1,50,000,000 for the rent of 1,3, and9 September 2016, and sought payment of the said money. However, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff had already received a final and conclusive judgment in favor of the said part of the claim for the unpaid rent in the Suwon District Court Decision 2018Gadan52573, Jun. 2, 2016, the claim for this portion filed with the same content is unlawful as there is no benefit in the protection of rights.

B. 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion on the claim for damages was intended to sell the instant real estate to another person, but the lease contract was terminated and the judgment became final and conclusive, thereby obstructing the Defendant’s continued possession of the instant real estate and refusing to deliver it and avoiding contact. As such, the Plaintiff was unable to sell the instant real estate in a timely manner, thereby causing damage to the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for such damage.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원안산지원 2020.09.09 2020가단3222

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.10.14 2020가단5048686

-서울중앙지방법원 2014.12.23 2014가단101338

-인천지방법원 2018.04.12 2017가단38197

-인천지방법원부천지원 2016.05.25 2015가단24050