beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff:
A. Defendant B delivers the real estate listed in the separate sheet, and is listed in the separate sheet from January 5, 2015.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On July 21, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with Nonparty D and the building listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant building”) with the period between KRW 5,00,000, KRW 200,000 per month of rent, and KRW 5,000 per month from August 5, 2012 of the lease term.
(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). B.
Since then, the Plaintiff, Nonparty D, and Defendant B agreed to succeed to the status of the lessee of the instant lease agreement, and accordingly, the Plaintiff, Nonparty D, and Defendant B prepared a new lease agreement that changes only the name of the lessee to Defendant B while maintaining the existing terms and conditions of the instant lease agreement.
C. In relation to the instant lease agreement, Nonparty D paid 4 times a period from August 5, 2012 to December 4, 2012, and Nonparty D and Defendant B did not pay the remainder.
Defendant C without the consent of the Plaintiff, concluded a sublease contract with Nonparty D on the instant building, and has been possessed until now.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. According to each of the above facts, it is clear that the duplicate of the complaint of this case containing the Plaintiff’s expression of intent to terminate the instant lease agreement was delivered to Defendant B on December 31, 2014, and thus, the instant lease agreement was lawfully terminated. As such, Defendant B is obligated to deliver the instant building and pay unpaid rent and rent for rent, and to leave the building of this case.
B. However, the plaintiff claims the remainder after deducting five million won of the lease deposit under the lease contract of this case from the amount of unpaid rent and unjust enrichment of the party rent which the defendant B has to return. Thus, the plaintiff is able to look at the lease contract of this case.