beta
Text
1. The appeal by the defendant (appointed party) is dismissed;
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant (appointed party).
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On July 7, 2011, the Plaintiff leased the instant building part to the Selection Party B with a deposit of KRW 5 million, monthly rent of KRW 450,000,000, and the lease period from July 10, 201 to July 9, 2013. The Selection Party B occupies the instant building part along with the Defendant (Appointed Party) who is the seller at that time.
B. However, on February 2, 2012, the Selection B did not pay the Plaintiff the monthly rent only once, and eventually, the content that contains the Plaintiff’s declaration of intent to terminate the said lease on the grounds of the delinquency in payment of the monthly rent for more than two months, reached the Defendant (Appointed Party) and the Selection B.
[Basis] Grounds for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 and 2 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination:
A. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the above lease agreement was lawfully terminated on February 2, 2012, and thus, the Defendant (Appointed Party) and the Appointed B, the owner of the instant building, have the duty to deliver it to the Plaintiff.
In addition, the Selection B is obligated to return, as claimed by the Plaintiff, the unjust enrichment calculated by deducting the deposit amount of KRW 5 million from the deposit amount of KRW 5,500,000 from July 10, 201 to August 9, 2012 (=450,000 x 13 months) and the unjust enrichment of KRW 4,50,000 from August 10, 201 to the completion date of delivery of the instant building.
B. The Defendant (Appointed Party)’s assertion of the Defendant (Appointed Party) interfered with the life of the Plaintiff, such as: “The Plaintiff, a lessor, by deceiving the Appointed B, a lessee, and by attracting time, by means of numerous methods; and “compensation for damages is not returned,” and “management expenses are paid without any management; or even if the number of the instant building itself was more than the repair site, the Defendant’s toilet was able to repair the repair site, and thereby interfered with the life of the Plaintiff, such as finding the proprietor and avoiding disturbance.”