건물명도(인도)
1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.
(a) deliver the buildings listed in the separate sheet;
(b) KRW 8910,00 and Appendix from March 21, 2018.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On November 10, 200, the Plaintiff leased the instant building to the Defendant with a deposit of KRW 5 million, KRW 550,000 per month, and the period from November 10, 200 to November 20, 202.
(hereinafter “instant lease”). B.
On July 2017, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant that the lease of this case was terminated on the ground of the delinquency in rent for 12 months.
C. The total rent of the instant lease that occurred by March 20, 2018 is KRW 11,385 million, and the total rent that the Defendant paid to the Plaintiff is KRW 9,940,000.
[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy
2. The assertion and judgment
A. According to the above facts as to the cause of the claim, the lease of this case was terminated on July 2017 due to the Defendant’s delinquency in rent.
Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff and pay 8.1 million won (i.e., KRW 11.385 million - KRW 9994 million - KRW 5 million - KRW 5.5 million) and the amount of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent calculated by the ratio of KRW 550,000 per month from March 21, 2018 to the completion date of the delivery of the instant building.
B. As to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant alleged that “The Plaintiff is obligated to pay KRW 2 million to the Defendant, since it made an electric extension work on the instant building and spent KRW 2 million.” However, there is no evidence to acknowledge the Defendant’s above assertion and the existence of an increase in its value, the above assertion is without merit. 2) The Defendant did not have any evidence to acknowledge that “The amount of value-added tax is KRW 550,000,000,000, which is equivalent to the value-added tax, is not refundable from the tax office.” Therefore, the Defendant did not incur damages from the tax office due to the Plaintiff’s lack of a tax invoice issued by the Defendant. Accordingly, the Defendant’s assertion that “one hundred and fifty thousand,000,000,0000, which is equivalent to the value-added tax, should be offset against unpaid rent.” However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the said assertion was included
3. If so, the plaintiff's claim is above.