건물명도등
1. The plaintiff's appeal and the plaintiff's claim expanded in the trial are all dismissed.
2. Demanding and expanding the costs of appeal.
1. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. On February 6, 2013, the Plaintiff asserted that the instant real estate was leased to the Defendant by setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 10,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 700,000, and period of lease from February 13, 2013 to February 13, 2014.
Since the execution of delivery of the instant real estate was completed on March 7, 2016, the Defendant has to pay to the Plaintiff the amount calculated by subtracting KRW 13,80,000,000 from the total amount of rent for 34 months from April 13, 2013 to March 7, 2016 or unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent for 34 months from March 7, 2016 (34 months x 70,000,000, plus KRW 12,842,910, total amount of overdue management expenses from December 12, 2013 to March 3, 2016, and delay damages therefrom should be paid to the Plaintiff.
B. According to the records in Gap evidence No. 2, the fact that the lease contract (hereinafter "the lease contract in this case") was made between the plaintiff and the defendant as to the real estate in this case on February 6, 2013 between the plaintiff and the plaintiff, the tenant, the lease deposit of KRW 10,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 700,000, and the lease term of the lease from February 13, 2013 to February 13, 2014 is recognized.
However, the following circumstances, namely, ① the Defendant did not pay the Plaintiff the deposit or monthly rent after the formation of the instant lease agreement, as follows: (i) the Plaintiff paid the lease deposit or monthly rent, 10,000 won in total as the lease deposit, and monthly rent, each of the 5,000,000 won on February 6, 2013; and (iii) the same year as the lease deposit.
3.28.28. The same year;
4. Each of the 16th 16th 700,000 won was claimed, but the above lease deposit and the rent seems to have been paid by G, who is the defendant's punishment.
2. In ordinary lease, the Plaintiff, a lessor, has the duty to resolve the lien issue of the instant real estate. However, the Defendant applied for the instant lease agreement rather than in the instant lease agreement.