명도
1. The defendant shall receive KRW 20,000,000 from the plaintiff, and at the same time, shall be the real estate stated in the attached Table to the plaintiff.
1. On January 30, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant with the terms that the Plaintiff leases real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as “instant lease building”) to the Defendant as lease deposit amounting to KRW 20 million,000,000, KRW 650,000 per each month, and the lease terming to KRW 14,000 from February 14, 2013 to February 13, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as “instant lease agreement”). The Defendant paid the Plaintiff KRW 20,00,000 as lease deposit.
From June 2013, the Defendant began to delay the rent, and the Defendant was paid to the Plaintiff as of July 15, 2016, as of July 15, 2016, the rent was paid by May 2015.
On January 13, 2017, the Plaintiff expressed to the Defendant the intent to terminate the instant lease agreement on the ground of the delinquency in rent.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, Gap evidence 6-1 to 6, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the facts of the determination as to the cause of the claim, the instant lease agreement was terminated on January 13, 2017 upon the termination of the Plaintiff. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant lease building to the Plaintiff.
In addition, the Defendant is obligated to obtain profits equivalent to the rent and to compensate the Plaintiff for damages equivalent to the same amount while continuously occupying and using the leased building of this case. Thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the total amount of KRW 19,500,000 (=650,000 x 30 months x 30 months) accrued from June 14, 2015 to November 13, 2017, and the amount of unjust enrichment calculated at the rate of KRW 650,000 per month from November 14, 2017 to the delivery date of the building of this case, barring special circumstances.
3. Judgment on the defendant's simultaneous performance defense
A. According to the facts acknowledged prior to the simultaneous performance defense, the defendant raised objection.