건물인도등
1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.
(a) Of the two-storys of the real estate listed in the separate sheet, each point is indicated in the separate sheet No. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On March 28, 2013, C, the Plaintiff’s agent, leased the instant real estate to the Defendant with a lease deposit of KRW 10 million, KRW 500,000 per month, and the lease term from April 29, 2013 to 24 months (hereinafter “instant lease contract”), and the said lease contract has been implicitly renewed thereafter.
B. From April 29, 2013 to February 28, 2016, the Defendant paid to the Plaintiff KRW 7 million out of the rent of KRW 17 million for 34 months.
C. On November 23, 2015, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of his/her intention to terminate the instant lease agreement on the grounds of delinquency in rent for at least two years, and the said notification reached the Defendant around that time.
[Reasons for Recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, entry of part of evidence No. 3, and purport of the whole pleadings / [Evidence Evidence] Part of evidence No. 3
2. According to the facts of the above recognition, since the instant lease agreement was lawfully terminated due to the Defendant’s two or more rents around November 23, 2015, the Defendant delivered the instant real estate to the Plaintiff, and the remainder overdue rent of KRW 10 million ( KRW 17 million - 7 million) until February 28, 2016 is deducted from the lease deposit of KRW 10 million. Thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent calculated at the rate of KRW 500,000 per month from February 29, 2016 to the completion of delivery of the instant real estate.
The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant paid KRW 9 million as the lease deposit and sought payment from January 1, 2016 to the Defendant for unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent from January 1, 2016. However, according to the purport of the written evidence No. 1 and the entire pleadings, it can be recognized that the Defendant paid KRW 10 million as the lease deposit to the Plaintiff by April 29, 2013. Thus, the part of the Plaintiff’s claim for unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent of the Plaintiff exceeding the recognized portion is without merit.
3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim is accepted within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claims are made.