월세금
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The defendant of the claim shall make the plaintiff 2,530.
1. The fact that the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant on November 1, 2014 that the Plaintiff leased KRW 2.50,000 per month to the Defendant without setting a period for the land and housing located in Pyeongtaek-si C (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). The Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed on the termination of the instant lease agreement around May 1, 2015, and the fact that the Defendant did not pay KRW 2.80,000 during the term of the instant lease agreement does not conflict between the parties.
2. According to the allegations and the facts of the above recognition, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 280,000 not paid to the Plaintiff and the damages for delay calculated at each rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from April 21, 2016, which is the day following the day when the original copy of the instant payment order was served on the original copy of the instant payment order, until July 15, 2016, the date when the judgment of the first instance court was rendered, and 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings, from the following day until the day when
Furthermore, the Plaintiff sought an amount of KRW 2,250,00 from May 2, 2015 to February 1, 2016, which was the date when the instant lease agreement was concluded, to seek unjust enrichment or damages equivalent to the rent from around May 2, 2015 to around February 1, 2016. Thus, in a case where the lessee continued to occupy the leased building after the lease agreement was terminated, but the lessee did not use or profit from the leased building in accordance with the original purpose of the lease agreement, even if the damage was incurred to the lessor, the lessee’s return of unjust enrichment is not established (see Supreme Court Decision 98Da8554, Jul. 10, 1998). Thus, the Defendant did not dispute between the parties, or where the removal wall was left, it may be recognized by the video of the evidence No. 2, without obtaining permission from the Plaintiff.