입실료 청구의 소
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1...
1. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendant asserted from August 1, 2012 to August 22, 2016, among the Seocho-gu Seoul Building, the joint ownership of the Plaintiff and his spouse, 513 (hereinafter “instant studio”).
(2) The Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the Plaintiff the total amount of KRW 24 million per month (i.e., KRW 500,000 per month x 48 months) and the delay damages. (ii) The Defendant asserted that the Defendant worked in Company D, the representative director of which was the Plaintiff from August 1, 2012 to September 7, 2016. At the beginning of the work, the Defendant had been living in the said company’s dormitory located in Seo-gu Incheon, Incheon, which was provided by the said company without compensation for six months and had the Plaintiff work for the said company’s head office, and had the Plaintiff work for the said company’s head office. Therefore, the Defendant did not have any obligation to pay the Plaintiff the Plaintiff the amount of the room.
B. Determination Domination, absence of dispute, and entry in Gap evidence 1 through 3 [Defendant 1 shall provide Gap evidence 1 ("the entry contract and matters to be observed"; hereinafter "the entry contract of this case").
() After signing the contract, the part on the “actual fee of KRW 500,000 per month” was alleged to have been altered. However, in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the input fee and the damages for delay during the period in which the Plaintiff had resided in the room of this case from August 1, 2012 to August 22, 2016. Since it is recognized that the Defendant resided in the room of this case from August 1, 2012 to August 22, 2016, and that the entry fee in the contract of this case signed by the Defendant is stated “50,000 won per month.” Thus, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff the input fee and the damages for delay.
2. The defendant's preliminary decision on the defense of the expiration of the extinctive prescription shall be the admission fee that the plaintiff seeks as an accommodation facility.