건물명도 등
1. The defendant delivers the building indicated in the attached list to the plaintiff and pays KRW 98,454,838 to the plaintiff.
2. The plaintiff's remainder.
1. If Gap evidence No. 2 of the judgment on the cause of the claim and Eul's testimony show the purport of the entire pleadings, the plaintiff and the defendant entered into a lease agreement with the defendant on January 4, 2012 on the lease deposit amount of KRW 26,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 2,300,000, and the defendant did not pay rent to the plaintiff thereafter. Thus, the above lease agreement was terminated on July 28, 2015, where the plaintiff delivered the defendant a copy of the complaint of this case including the plaintiff's declaration of intention to terminate the above lease on the ground of overdue rent of the defendant, and accordingly, the defendant delivered the building of this case to the plaintiff, and from January 4, 2012 to July 28, 2015, the above lease agreement was terminated by the duty to pay less than KRW 9,304,300,300,000 x 3084,305
Furthermore, even after the termination of the above lease agreement, the Plaintiff sought a return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent from the date of the completion of delivery by asserting that the Defendant continues to possess the building of this case. However, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant uses and benefits from the building of this case as its original usage after the termination of the lease agreement, and there is no other evidence to
2. As such, the plaintiff's claim is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.