건물인도
The Defendant, as the Plaintiff
(a) deliver the real estate listed in the separate sheet;
B. From October 31, 2020 to above A
subsection (b).
1. Basic facts
A. On May 5, 2018, the Plaintiff leased the instant building to the Defendant with the lease deposit of KRW 10,00,000,000, and the lease deposit of KRW 10,000 from May 31, 2018 to May 30, 2020 (payment on May 31, 2018) (hereinafter “instant lease contract”). Around that time, the Plaintiff handed over the instant building to the Defendant and received KRW 10,00,000 from the Defendant as the lease deposit.
B. The Defendant did not pay the rent for the six-year period until January 2020.
The sum of overdue rent by January 30, 2020 is KRW 7,800,00.
C. On September 9, 2019, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant any content-certified mail that contains the content that the Plaintiff would terminate the instant lease agreement on the grounds of the Defendant’s delinquency in rent, and the said content-certified mail reached the Defendant around that time.
From January 31, 2020 to October 30, 2020, the Defendant paid the Plaintiff KRW 11,700,000 in total under the name of the rent.
[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. According to the fact of recognition on the duty to deliver the instant building, the instant lease agreement was lawfully terminated by reaching the Defendant around that time by proving the content of the Plaintiff’s declaration of termination on September 9, 2019, on the grounds of the Defendant’s delinquency in rent for at least three years.
The Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff, barring special circumstances.
B. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff sought payment of the unpaid rent and unjust enrichment from January 30, 2020, the amount of the rent of KRW 7,800,000 and the delay damages therefrom, calculated by the rate of KRW 1,30,000 per month from January 31, 2020 to the completion date of delivery of the building of this case. Accordingly, the Defendant asserted to the effect that the lease deposit of this case should be deducted from the lease deposit of this case.