임대료
1. The Defendant’s KRW 21,687,526 as well as the Plaintiff’s KRW 6% per annum from January 1, 2011 to March 27, 2015.
1. In full view of the statements in Gap's evidence Nos. 2 through 6, 8, and 10 as to the cause of the claim, and the witness Gap's witness's testimony and the whole purport of pleading, the rent accrued until December 31, 2010 after the plaintiff leased loak-si B Apartment Construction Site (hereinafter "the construction site of this case") at the defendant's request from the defendant. Of the rent for the materials supplied until August 2, 2008 (the so-called "the first minute" indicated in the trading statement), the 21,483,274 won (the amount reflecting the settlement of the materials at the time of lease 4,153,930 won) among the rent for the materials supplied by the time of August 2, 2008 (the amount reflecting the settlement of the materials at the time of lease 4,153,930 won), 398,162 won out of the rent for the additional materials (the second minute) and the above evidence No. 15 cannot be found otherwise to be found out. 15.
On the other hand, the Plaintiff received KRW 193,910 out of the above rent from the Defendant around January 28, 2011.
Therefore, barring special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff rent of KRW 21,687,526 (=21,483,274 won 398,162 - 193,910).
2. Judgment on the defendant's defense
A. The Defendant’s defense of repayment was paid KRW 193,910 around January 28, 201, and around that time, the Plaintiff’s defense that the rent for the temporary materials was settled in entirety. However, the witness’s testimony alone is insufficient to recognize that the rent was fully paid, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the rent was fully paid. Therefore, the aforementioned defense is without merit.
B. The defendant's defense of extinctive prescription is the plaintiff's claim of rent due to the lease of movable property and Article 164 of the Civil Act.