건물명도
1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.
The defendant shall draw up the attached Form of real estate stated in the attached list to the plaintiff.
1. Basic facts
A. On October 27, 2006, the Plaintiff leased the real estate stated in the order (hereinafter “instant store”) to the Defendant as the lease deposit amounting to KRW 70 million, monthly renting KRW 2.5 million, and the lease period from November 15, 2006 to 60 months (hereinafter “instant lease contract”).
B. From November 15, 2006, the Defendant commenced business with the trade name “C” at the instant store from November 15, 2006, but did not run a business since the Haman on November 2010.
C. Since January 15, 2007, the defendant did not pay the rent until now.
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant shall be deemed to have failed to pay two or more vehicles, and the fact that the duplicate of the complaint of this case, on May 25, 2011, stating the intent to terminate the lease contract of this case on the ground of the delinquency in rent, is obvious in the record.
Therefore, the instant lease agreement is deemed terminated on May 25, 201. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant store to the Plaintiff, barring special circumstances, and pay the Plaintiff rent KRW 105,887,096 (=2.5 million + 11/31 of April 12) from January 15, 2007 to May 25, 201, the date of termination of the instant lease agreement.
Furthermore, the plaintiff asserts that the defendant is obliged to return unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent until he delivers the store of this case, since the defendant uses the store of this case without any legal ground.
However, even if the lessee continued to possess the leased building after the termination of the lease contract, if the lessee did not obtain any profit by failing to use or make profit from the leased building according to the original purpose of the contract, the obligation to return unjust enrichment therefrom is not established. This is also a case where the lessee was unable to use or make profit from the leased building due to the lessee’s circumstances, and Supreme Court Decision 2004Da818 Decided October 12, 2006.