건물명도 등
1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.
(a) Of the buildings listed in the separate sheet, each point of Annex A, 2, 3, 4, and 1.
1. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire pleadings as to the statements in the evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the Plaintiff leased the building listed in the attached list (hereinafter “instant building”) on September 23, 2014 to the Defendant with the lease deposit of KRW 10 million, monthly rent of KRW 6,40,000 (including management expenses, additional dues, the first day of each month), and the lease period from November 1, 2014 to September 30, 2017. The Defendant was paid the rent from November 1, 2014 to February 28, 2015 to March 2015.
‘A statement can be seen as a mistake in calculation.'
2. Meanwhile, the above lease contract was terminated on January 14, 2016, which was the date of delivery of a copy of the complaint, and became invalid as the copy of the complaint of this case, which contained the termination of the above lease contract on the grounds of the delinquency in payment of more than two times.
3. Therefore, the Defendant’s delivery of the instant building to the Plaintiff, and it is apparent that the deposit amount of KRW 10 million falls under the portion of 18.75 days (10 million ±640,000 ± 15.625 months = 15.625 months in arrears) in 15 months in arrears. It is apparent that the overdue rent from March 1, 2015 to January 14, 2016 and the rent from January 15, 2016 to June 19, 2016 (18.75 days are deemed 19 days) are appropriated for unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent from January 15, 2016 to June 19, 2016, and thus, the obligation to return unjust enrichment is to be calculated at the ratio of the rent from June 20, 2016 to June 64, 2016.
I would like to say.
4. If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case is accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remainder is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.