손해배상(기) 등
1. The counterclaim Defendant:3,742,339 won to the counterclaim and 5% per annum from April 30, 2014 to January 13, 2015.
1. The following facts do not conflict between the Parties:
On October 24, 2012, the counterclaim Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant”) leased 120 square meters (hereinafter referred to as the “instant real estate”) on October 24, 2012 to B and C on the first floor of the building located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D (hereinafter referred to as “instant real estate”) on a rent of KRW 2.5 million per month, general management expenses, KRW 1.8 million per month, KRW 5 million per month, and the lease period from November 25, 2012 to November 24, 2014.
(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). B.
The Plaintiff (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) acquired the status of the lessee under the instant lease agreement from B and C on February 8, 2013.
C. On February 11, 2014, the Plaintiff ordered the Defendant to order the instant real estate.
2. The assertion and judgment of the party involved
A. (1) The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) 1) The Plaintiff’s claim that the lease deposit be returned to the Plaintiff is KRW 6,983,889 in total, and the Plaintiff paid KRW 26,105,814 to the Defendant as the above rent, etc. from February 2, 2013 to February 2, 2014, which was imposed by the Defendant under the instant lease agreement. As such, the unpaid rent, etc. is KRW 40,878,075 in total.
B) 66,983,889 won, including the above rent claimed by the Defendant, includes 156,878 won for facility environmental improvement charges, 384,202 won for causing traffic congestion, and 248,463 won for cleaning septic tanks, but the environmental improvement charges for facilities and causing traffic congestion are imposed by the owner. Since the cleaning charges for septic tanks are included in general management expenses, the above amount is deducted from the calculation of unpaid rent. Thus, the Defendant claimed 4,880,635 won against the Plaintiff on the ground of the overdue payment of rent, etc. under the lease contract in this case. However, the Plaintiff’s failure to pay the above rent, etc. did not accept the defects arising from the water leakage, etc. of the real estate in this case, and there is a justifiable reason for delinquency in payment.