beta
(영문) 의정부지방법원고양지원 2016.10.21 2016가단10448

건물인도 등

Text

1. The defendant shall receive KRW 18,700,000 from the plaintiff and at the same time real estate stated in the attached Table to the plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On September 25, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the purport that the deposit amount of KRW 80,000,000 per month, and KRW 3,000,000 per month (excluding value-added tax) shall be paid on the 30th day of each month (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) on the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”). However, the lease agreement was agreed to KRW 2,00,000 per month for three months from the date of the contract, and thereafter KRW 3,00,000 per month.

Meanwhile, in the event that the lessee fails to pay the rent more than twice consecutively, the lessor can terminate the instant lease contract.

After the conclusion of the above lease contract, the Defendant paid KRW 60,000,000 among the above deposit money.

B. On January 25, 2016, the Defendant in arrears paid the Plaintiff KRW 3,00,000 for the rent of KRW 31,40,000 until April 29, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the fact that the termination of the lease agreement was recognized, the lease agreement of this case was lawfully terminated on May 17, 2016, stating the purport that the Defendant terminated the lease agreement on the grounds that it was two or more times of arrears.

Therefore, barring special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant real estate to the Plaintiff, and to return the instant real estate if there is unjust enrichment obtained by using and making profits from the instant real estate after the date of overdue rent and termination.

B. (1) The Defendant’s assertion regarding the Defendant’s assertion (1) was running the instant real estate from the instant real estate to July 2016, and thereafter, the Plaintiff occupied the instant real estate since it did not return the deposit. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant used the instant real estate from May 17, 2016, which was the date of termination of the contract, in accordance with the purpose of this case.