beta
Text
1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.
(a) deliver the buildings listed in the separate sheet;
B. KRW 17,325,000 and as regards it, January 2015.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On March 14, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a real estate lease agreement with the Defendant (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with the following terms, and around April 1, 2014, delivered the building indicated in the attached list (hereinafter “instant building”) to the Defendant, and the Defendant occupies and uses the instant building from around that time.
- - Sound - Building 204,000 - Lease deposit: 20,000 - Lease term: April 1, 2014 to March 31, 2015 (12 months) - Rent and time of payment: 3,465,00 won (including value-added tax) as of the last day of each month.
B. The Defendant paid only three months of rent for eight months until November 30, 2014, but did not pay the remainder.
C. The Plaintiff requested the Defendant to pay the unpaid rent, and the Plaintiff recently notified the termination of the lease agreement and requested the delivery of the instant building.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute between the parties, entry of Gap evidence 1, purport of whole pleadings
2. Determination:
A. According to the above facts, the instant lease agreement was terminated by the Plaintiff’s notice of termination on the ground of the Defendant’s delinquency in rent.
Therefore, the defendant is obligated to deliver the building of this case to the plaintiff.
In addition, the defendant is obligated to pay the rent of KRW 17,325,00 (3,465,000 x 5 months) and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from January 7, 2015 to the date of full payment, clearly stating that the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case is the day following the delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case, and to pay the amount of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent of KRW 3,465,00 per month from December 1, 2014 to the completion of delivery of the building of this case.
B. The defendant asserts that the plaintiff's assertion is groundless since the plaintiff's damage is not due to the deduction of overdue rent from the lease deposit.
The lease deposit is terminated after the lease contract is terminated.