건물명도
1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)
(a) deliver attached list real estate;
(b) 14,000,000; and
1. According to Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7 and Eul evidence Nos. 1 (including partial identification numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), on April 1, 2011, the plaintiff may recognize on April 1, 201 that on the part of the defendant, on the condition that the contract area is 265.06m2, monthly rent, three years (not later than the end of April 2014) and three years (not later than the end of April 201), the defendant's overdue rent remains 14 million won [the amount of rent occurred 74 million won (including KRW 2 million x 37 months x 36 million)] as of the end of April 2014 - the defendant's payment amount is 60 million won (the deposit amount is 24 million won and KRW 36 million).
(A) The Defendant asserted a five-year period agreement, but it is difficult to deem that the agreement between the parties was reached with the offer and acceptance expressed in a final and conclusive manner, and even in light of the respective entries and the original term of lease in the evidence No. 16 and No. 7, the above argument is difficult to accept). If the above sub-lease has expired, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the above real estate to the Plaintiff by way of restitution, and to pay to the Plaintiff unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent of KRW 2,00,000 per month from May 1, 2014 to the date the delivery of the above real estate is completed.
(A) The Plaintiff sought unjust enrichment of KRW 10,000 per month based on the language and text of the evidence No. 1, but this is imminent in half of the deposit received by the Plaintiff even if considering the parties’ friendship relationship at the time of preparation of the above contract, the status of the Defendant’s broadcasting relations, etc., and as long as objective data, such as the appraisal of rent for the pertinent period, are not presented as evidence, the part of the Plaintiff’s claim for unjust enrichment of substantially exceeding the agreed difference during the above lease period, cannot be accepted). 2. The Defendant’s judgment on the cause of the counterclaim is based on the above sub-lease contract (Article 3).