건물철거 및 토지인도 등
The judgment of the first instance court is modified as follows. A.
The Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) shall complete the Plaintiff-Counterclaim at the time of the previous week.
A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.
1. The reasoning of the court of first instance’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, in addition to the determination of the defendant’s additional or emphasized argument in the court of first instance under paragraph (2). Thus, this is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Additional determination
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) As from November 1, 2017, the Defendant did not pay the rent for arrears, etc. under the instant lease agreement, and thereafter occupied the instant building and land by installing corrective devices, such as installing business facilities and house fixtures on the instant building and installing them, the Plaintiff sought compensation from November 1, 2017 to the completion date of delivery of the instant land. 2) Since the restaurant operated in the instant building on the Defendant’s assertion was in the state of business suspension from February 2018, the Defendant did not use and benefit from the instant building and land from March 2018.
Therefore, the defendant does not have the obligation to pay the rent for the rent from March 2018, and the rent in arrears shall be deducted from the deposit amount of KRW 20,000,000 under the second lease contract of this case.
3) In light of the following: (a) the lessee is obligated to pay rent to the lessor regardless of whether the leased object was used or has been used before the termination of the lease agreement; (b) in a case where the lessee continuously occupied the leased object after the lease agreement was terminated, but the lessee did not obtain substantial benefits because he did not use or have profit from the leased object, the lessee’s return of unjust enrichment is not established even if the damage was incurred to the lessor, and the lessee did not take out his own facility.