건물명도(인도)
1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.
A. The following shall be deducted from the Plaintiff’s money to be paid at KRW 25 million:
1. On July 20, 2013, the Plaintiff: (a) leased a building listed in the attached list (hereinafter “building”) to the Defendant on July 20, 2013, with a deposit of KRW 25 million; (b) monthly rent of KRW 2.5 million; (c) the term of lease specified from August 1, 2013 to August 1, 2014; and (d) the fact that the contract has been maintained by renewed renewal thereafter does not conflict between the parties.
According to the statement in Gap evidence No. 4, the plaintiff sent a notice of refusal to renew the lease agreement to the defendant on June 14, 2018, and the defendant received it on the following day. Thus, the lease agreement in this case terminated on August 1, 2018.
Therefore, barring special circumstances, the defendant is obligated to deliver the building to the plaintiff, and to pay unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent that the defendant gains from occupying the building from January 1, 2019 to the completion date of delivery of the building as requested by the plaintiff.
2. The defendant's defense is asserted that the return of the remaining lease deposit and the delivery of the building should be carried out at the same time until the completion date of delivery of the building.
Upon the termination of a lease agreement, the Plaintiff is obliged to return the remaining lease deposit to the Defendant until the completion date of delivery of the building. Since this obligation is related to the Defendant’s duty to deliver the building to the Plaintiff simultaneously, this part of the Defendant’s defense is with merit.
3. In conclusion, the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff unjust enrichment calculated by the ratio of KRW 2.75 million per month from January 1, 2019 to the date the delivery of the building is completed, and the Plaintiff shall return the remainder of the deposit deducted from the deposit for lease deposit KRW 25 million and deliver the building at the same time.
The plaintiff's claim is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remainder is dismissed as there is no ground.