beta
Text
1.(a)
The judgment of the first instance shall be amended as follows:
B. 1) The defendant is recorded in the attached list of the plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The Plaintiff asserts that the lease contract entered into with the Defendant was terminated due to the Defendant’s failure to pay the deposit or delinquency in rent, and sought the delivery of the real estate to the Defendant, and the return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent from October 13, 2014 to the completion date of delivery of the said real estate.
Comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions and arguments as to Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the defendant on September 1, 2014 for the apartment of this case with a deposit of KRW 10 million, KRW 600,000 per month, and KRW 600,000 per month, from September 12, 2014 to September 11, 2016 (hereinafter “the instant lease agreement”), and the remaining deposit of KRW 8,500,000 from the defendant on September 3, 2014 and reached an agreement on September 25, 2014 to pay the remainder deposit of KRW 8,50,000 to the defendant on September 25, 201. The defendant has resided in the instant apartment of this case from September 12, 2014 to the date, and the amount paid to the plaintiff on September 14, 2014 to the date of termination of the lease agreement.
According to the above facts, KRW 1.5 million paid by the Defendant on September 3, 2014 and KRW 2.1 million paid by the Defendant on September 5, 2014 are appropriated for the Defendant’s sole obligation to deposit money, which is the only obligation of the Defendant at that time. On the other hand, it is insufficient to recognize that the facts seen earlier and the evidence submitted by the Defendant alone have designated the Defendant’s obligation to repay the sum of KRW 2.4 million on October 13 and November 13, 2014, respectively, while paying the sum of KRW 2.4 million on November 13, 2014, the above KRW 2.4 million should be appropriated for the obligation to deposit money pursuant to Article 477 of the Civil Act.
Therefore, the defendant around January 12, 2015 that the plaintiff expressed his intention of termination and around May 2015 that the intention of termination reaches the defendant.