beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) paid KRW 4,237,902 to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and its amount from December 27, 2016 to February 17, 2017.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On December 9, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with the Defendant, setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 50 million, monthly rent of KRW 2750,000,000 from December 30, 2015 to December 29, 2017, and delivered the instant real estate to the Defendant.
B. From April 2016, the Defendant delayed to pay the rent under the instant lease agreement. On October 27, 2016, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a certificate of the purport that the lease contract is terminated on the grounds of overdue rent, and thereafter, the content certificate reaches the Defendant.
C. Since then, the Defendant operated the instant real estate as well as transferred the instant real estate to the Plaintiff after restoring it to its original state as at the time of lease on December 26, 2016.
From the lease deposit amount of KRW 50 million under the instant lease agreement, the remainder after deducting both the overdue rent, management fee, and unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent from the time the Defendant transferred the instant real estate to the Plaintiff is KRW 4,237,902.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 1 to 5, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The Plaintiff’s judgment on the claim of this lawsuit was in the form of dividing the inside by walls at the time of sale, but thereafter, the Plaintiff was composed of a single space without dividing by walls at the time of purchase or lease of the instant real estate to the Defendant. However, when the Plaintiff purchases the instant real estate and leases it in the future, the Plaintiff was expected to recover at the time of sale after the expiration of the lease period. In fact, the Plaintiff spent KRW 1,550,00 to restore the said real estate to its original state, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the money as stated in the claim of the principal lawsuit, which is the cost of restitution.