사용료
1. The Defendant’s KRW 54,00,000 as well as 5% per annum from January 21, 2018 to February 8, 2018 to the Plaintiff.
1. As to the cause of claim
A. On November 17, 2014, the Plaintiff leased the first floor and temporary building in Seo-gu Incheon, Seo-gu, Incheon, as security deposit of KRW 65 million, monthly rent of KRW 3,600,00 (including value-added tax, and payment by 20 days later each month), and the period of KRW 24 months, and on May 12, 2015, the security deposit was increased to KRW 75 million.
[Ground of recognition] The entry of Gap evidence No. 1 and the purport of the whole argument
B. The Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of 15 months rent (the rent from October 20, 2016 to January 19, 2018) from October 2016 to December 2017 at KRW 54,00,000 (3,60,000 to January 19, 2018) and the amount of delay damages at each rate of 15% per annum prescribed by the Civil Act from January 21, 2017 following the day following the delivery of a copy of the application for modification of the purport of the claim and the cause of the claim in this case (3,60,000 to 15 months).
2. As to the defendant's argument
A. 1) Whether the ownership of the leased object claimed in the claim is transferred from the Plaintiff to the New Real Estate Trust Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “New Real Estate Trust”), and thus, the Plaintiff cannot accept the Plaintiff’s request. 2) After completing the registration of ownership transfer on the first building located in Seo-gu Incheon, Seo-gu, Incheon, which is the object of the lease on November 14, 2014, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on the part of the New Real Estate Trust on May 23, 2016.
[Ground of recognition] No. 1, No. 3 of the evidence No. 1, even if the object of lease is owned by a prote real estate trust, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the defendant received a claim for return of the object or payment of rent or its corresponding amount from the prote real estate trust. Thus, the defendant cannot refuse the plaintiff's claim for rent payment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Da54641, Sept. 6, 1996). Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is
(b)payment of additional rents;