관리비
1. The part against Defendant C among the judgment of the first instance is revoked and the part against Defendant C corresponding to the revoked part is revoked.
1. Determination as to the claim against Defendant B
A. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7 (including paper numbers) and Eul evidence No. 3 as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff set short-term lease period from August 1, 2013 to September 30, 2013, and the rent of KRW 6 million (excluding value-added tax and prepaid) for the period from August 1, 2013 to September 30, 2013 (hereinafter "Defendant Company") with the whole purport of the pleadings as to Gap evidence Nos. 1 to Eul evidence No. 3 (hereinafter "the building of this case"). The defendant Company continued to use the building of this case after the expiration of the lease period and returned it to the plaintiff on September 4, 2015, upon the plaintiff's request for the refund of rent unpaid, the plaintiff could be found to have not received KRW 39,400,00 among rent calculated by September 4, 2015 under the lease contract of this case.
Thus, barring special circumstances, the Defendant Company is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid rent of KRW 39,400,000 and the delay damages therefor.
(A) The Plaintiff claimed a rent from September 5, 2015 to September 18, 2015 under the premise that the Defendant Company returned the instant building on September 18, 2015. However, in light of the respective descriptions of the evidence No. 6-2 and No. 7-3, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant Company returned the instant building to the Defendant on September 4, 2015, and thus, the claim for rent after September 5, 2015 is groundless).
The summary of the argument of the Defendant Company 1 on the argument of the Defendant Company: (a) The instant lease agreement is a short-term lease agreement with the payment of the prepaid rent, but the contract is terminated immediately, so there is no room for the unpaid rent to occur.
② On April 2014, Defendant Company removed the instant building from the instant building and paid the Plaintiff full payment of rent corresponding to the period of use after settling accounts for three months.
And the defendant company.