손해배상(기)
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On January 25, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant, setting a deposit of KRW 20 million in the instant real estate owned by the Plaintiff, KRW 20 million in the month of rent, and two years in the lease term, and entered into an agreement between the Defendant and the Defendant that “All facilities installed by the lessee as required by the lessee shall be restored to their original state at the time of termination of the lease agreement, and the lessee shall not claim for the premium for the said facilities.”
(hereinafter referred to as the “instant lease contract”) B.
On September 11, 2013, the Defendant did not pay a rent stipulated under the instant lease agreement. On September 11, 2013, the Plaintiff expressed to the Defendant that the instant lease was terminated on the ground that the said rent was overdue for more than two years.
C. The Defendant occupied the instant real estate by piling up the end-of-life vehicle, etc. on the instant real estate, and occupying the instant real estate by installing corrective devices at the entrance.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-1 through 5, Gap evidence 4 and 7, Gap evidence 6-1 through 6, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments
2. According to the facts of the judgment on the cause of the claim, the instant lease agreement was lawfully terminated due to the delay in rent for at least two years by the Defendant, a lessee, barring special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant real estate to the Plaintiff, and to pay the Plaintiff the difference calculated by the ratio of KRW 2 million per month from January 25, 2013 to the delivery of the instant real estate, or to return unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent.
3. Judgment on the defendant's defense
A. The Defendant asserted that, around July 2013, the Plaintiff received KRW 10 million from the Plaintiff and agreed to deliver the instant real estate to the Plaintiff. Thus, it is difficult to believe that the Defendant’s evidence No. 1 was a content-certified mail produced by the Defendant and sent to the Plaintiff, and that it is difficult to believe the content thereof.