임대료등 청구의 소
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.
1. The grounds for the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows: “H 1” F, 5 pages 1 of each of the grounds for the judgment of the court of first instance.
It shall be cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, since the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that stated in the following, except for the writing:
2. The part to be mard; or
Judgment
1) The fact that Plaintiff A’s failure to pay (1) is KRW 102,00,00,000 (=20,000,000,000 for KRW 24,000,000 for year 20,000,000 for KRW 24,000 for year 20,000 for 20,000 for 20,000 for 20,000 for 20,000 for 20,000 for 2015, there is no dispute between the parties, and the fact that Plaintiff A received KRW 18,130,00 for year 20,00 for 2016 for 200,00 for 10,000 for 200,000 for 200,000 for 204,000 for 205,209, 2004 for 2005,2004.
(Specific Date and time of payment and amount of payment are as listed in the attached Table). (2) As to this, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff paid KRW 2,000,000 to the Plaintiff on January 20, 2012, and KRW 200,000 on January 29, 2013, KRW 13,000,000 on November 13, 2013, and KRW 10,000 on October 14, 2014, KRW 106,00 on December 9, 2014, KRW 80,000 on November 23, 2015, KRW 20,000 on June 10, 2016, and KRW 300,00 on June 20, 200 on June 206, 206. However, the Defendant’s assertion above is based on the following reasons.
① On January 20, 2012, KRW 2,00,000: The Defendant’s payment of the said money to Plaintiff A is recognized (Evidence A5), but it is paid prior to the formation of the instant conciliation, and thus, it is not recognized as rent.
(2) The amount of KRW 200,000 on January 29, 2013: The same shall also apply to the number of Category B (6) including the number of Category B (6);
According to the statement, the defendant can recognize that the defendant paid the above money when installing the receiver according to his own needs.
However, Article 1 of the conciliation protocol of this case is d.
According to subsection (1), the defendant cannot claim the necessary and beneficial expenses against the plaintiff A. Thus, the above money is not recognized as rent.
(3) 1,00,000 won on November 13, 2013