건물인도
The Defendant, as the Plaintiff
(a) Category 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1, respectively, on the second floor of the real estate listed in the separate sheet.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On February 18, 2018, the Plaintiff: (a) leased, to the Defendant on the second floor of the real estate listed in the attached list, the leased deposit amounting to KRW 20 million; (b) KRW 1.2 million per month; (c) KRW 1.2 million per month; (d) KRW 1.2 million per month; (e) from February 22, 2018 to February 21, 2020; and (e) handed over the instant building to the Defendant by the period from February 22, 2018 to February 21, 2020.
(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). B.
The Defendant received the instant building and used it for the office’s purpose. From October 1, 2019, the Defendant delayed the payment of rent and management expenses (hereinafter “rent, etc.”) from October 1, 2019.
Accordingly, on January 6, 2020, the Plaintiff terminated the instant lease agreement on the following grounds: (a) the Defendant’s representative director D’s instant text messages sent to the Defendant: (b) the instant text messages sent to the Defendant, and the message sent to the Defendant.
[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap's 1 through 8, purport of whole pleading
2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the lease contract of this case was lawfully terminated on or around January 6, 2020 by the plaintiff's notice of termination on the ground of overdue rent of more than three years (the lease contract of this case was terminated on or around January 6, 2020). Thus, barring any special circumstance, the defendant is obligated to deliver the building of this case to the plaintiff as the return of the leased object and to pay a reasonable amount of unjust enrichment, such as overdue rent, etc. by the date of completion of delivery.
3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion
A. As to this, the Defendant: (a) frequently obstructed the use of the parking lot attached to the building of this case, and (b) took unfair or unilateral measures against the Defendant’s employees surrounding the use of the leased object, and (c) waterworks facilities.