건물인도 등
The judgment of the first instance court is modified as follows. A.
The defendant shall provide the plaintiff with the real estate listed in the attached list No. 1.
1. Basic facts
A. On July 22, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with the Defendant and the Plaintiff under the terms of KRW 30,000,000, KRW 1650,000 per month (on the last day of each month), and KRW 1650,000 per month (on the last day of each month), and from August 31, 2017 to August 30, 2019 (24 months) (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).
B. On August 21, 2019, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a certificate of content that contains a declaration of intent to terminate the instant lease agreement on the grounds of delinquency in rent, and the said certificate of content reached the Defendant on September 2, 2019.
C. The Defendant’s rent that was not paid out of the rent that was incurred until August 31, 2019 in relation to the instant lease agreement is KRW 12,450,000 in total.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 3, 6, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination:
A. According to the above facts, since the Defendant did not pay the rent exceeding the second two vehicles under the instant lease agreement, it is reasonable to deem that the instant lease agreement was lawfully terminated on September 2, 2019, when the Plaintiff’s declaration of intention to terminate the contract was delivered.
Therefore, barring special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant real estate to the Plaintiff, and pay the Plaintiff the sum of the overdue rent of KRW 12,450,000 and the delay damages therefor, and to return the rent or the unjust enrichment on the rent from September 1, 2019 to the date the delivery of the instant real estate is completed.
B. The Plaintiff sought payment of average management expenses calculated at the rate of KRW 523,024 per month from September 1, 2019 to the completion date of delivery of the instant real estate. However, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant occupied and used the instant real estate, thereby acquiring profits equivalent to the average management expenses every month. Thus, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is not acceptable. The Defendant’s assertion is unpaid management expenses to be imposed on the instant real estate in the future.