건물명도등
1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.
A. Of the 69.95 square meters of the first floor of the building listed in the attached list, the attached Form 2, 3, 6, 7, 2.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff is the owner of the real estate listed in the separate sheet.
B. On October 2014, the Defendant is a lessee who entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with the Plaintiff on the part (a) of 2,3,6,7, and 23.3 square meters inboard (hereinafter “the leased object of this case”) among real estate listed in the separate sheet, which are successively connected with each of the items in the separate sheet No. 2,3,6,7, and 23.3 square meters inboard (hereinafter “the leased object of this case”) among the real estate listed in the separate sheet, subject to the condition that the lease period of 24 months, 5 million won in rental deposit, monthly rent of 525,00 won (the monthly rent was adjusted to 55,00 won due to the Defendant’s failure to pay part of
C. From August 2015, the Defendant did not pay monthly rent at a time more than twice, or did not pay part or all of monthly rent. Accordingly, on January 21, 2016, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the termination of the instant lease agreement (hereinafter “instant termination notification”) on the ground that the instant rent was overdue at least twice, and sought delivery of the leased object.
After filing the instant lawsuit, the Defendant paid rent to the Plaintiff by May 15, 2016.
[Judgment of the court below] The ground for recognition is without dispute, Gap 1 through 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the above facts, since the lease contract of this case was lawfully terminated by the plaintiff's notice of termination of the lease contract of this case, the defendant is obligated to deliver the leased object of this case to the plaintiff, and to pay the plaintiff the amount of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent calculated at the rate of KRW 55,00 per month from May 16, 2016 to the completion date of delivery of the leased object of this case.
In regard to this, the defendant alleged to the effect that "the plaintiff's request for extradition should be dismissed because he paid delayed rent," but the defendant did not pay more than twice of rent, upon the notice of termination of this case.