건물인도 등
1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.
(a) deliver the buildings listed in the separate sheet;
B. From April 20, 2015, KRW 4,290,00 and the above.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On July 19, 2014, the Plaintiff leased the building listed in the attached list (hereinafter “instant building”) to the Defendant, with the lease deposit of KRW 15,00,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 1,430,00 (including value-added tax) and the lease period of KRW 1,430,00 (including value-added tax) from July 19, 2014 to July 18, 2016.
(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). B.
From January 20, 2015, the Defendant did not pay the Plaintiff the rent under the instant lease agreement, and the Plaintiff did not pay the same year.
4. 9. The Defendant informed the Defendant that the two or more vehicles have been in arrears, and sent a certificate of content demanding the payment.
C. Nevertheless, the Defendant did not pay that the Plaintiff was in arrears, and the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit to the effect that the instant lease contract is terminated on the grounds of more than two years of delay. The duplicate of the complaint was served on the Defendant on May 15, 2015.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 8, purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts, since the instant lease contract was lawfully terminated at the time when the duplicate of the complaint of this case stating the Plaintiff’s declaration of intent to terminate the lease contract was delivered to the Defendant, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff, and to pay the Plaintiff the amount of delayed rent of KRW 4,290,000 (= KRW 1,430,000 x 3 months x 3 months) from January 20, 2015 to April 19, 2015, and the amount of rent of KRW 1,430,000 from April 20 to April 20, 2015.
B. As to this, the defendant asserts to the effect that the plaintiff has the right to occupy the building of this case unless the plaintiff pays a sum of KRW 3,000,000,000 to the defendant for the expenses of director-generaling 2,00,000 and air-conditioning 1,00,000, but there is no evidence to acknowledge this, the defendant's assertion is without merit.
3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable and acceptable.