건물인도 등
1. From 20,00,000 to 20,000 won, the Defendant indicated the attached Form Nos. 1. from July 1, 2016 to 1.
1. Basic facts
A. On January 7, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant, setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 20,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 280,000 (excluding value-added tax), and the lease term of KRW 206,00,00 (hereinafter “instant real estate”) with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet between the Defendant and the real estate listed in the separate sheet from February 1, 2016 to January 31, 2018.
B. On May 4, 2016, the Defendant paid KRW 3,080,000 (including value-added tax) monthly rent for one month to the Plaintiff.
C. On June 23, 2016, a duplicate of the instant complaint stating the Plaintiff’s declaration of intent to terminate the said lease agreement was served on the Defendant.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, Gap evidence No. 2, purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the above findings of the determination, the Defendant did not pay the rent for the three-year period (3,4,5 months). As such, the above lease agreement was lawfully terminated upon the Plaintiff’s declaration of intent to terminate the lease.
Therefore, the defendant should receive the remaining money from the plaintiff after deducting the overdue interest from KRW 20,000,000 until the delivery of the real estate of this case, and deliver the said real estate to the plaintiff at the same time.
As to this, the Defendant asserted that the monthly rent for five months was paid by the Defendant from the end of July 2016, and that the Plaintiff was paid the monthly rent from the Defendant on July 4, 2016 and July 27, 2016, the Defendant is obligated to receive the remainder of the money calculated by deducting the amount calculated at the rate of KRW 2,800,000 from the deposit for lease deposit 20,000 to the monthly rent for five months from July 1, 2016 (the five-month rent paid by the Defendant is appropriated for the monthly rent from February 2, 2016 to June 2016).
3. The plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition.