beta
Text
1. The defendant
(a) Of the real estate listed in the separate sheet, each point of indication A, B, C, D, and A of the separate sheet.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On September 1, 2016, the Plaintiff concluded a lease agreement with the Defendant to recover the leased portion of the instant case to the original state and return it to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) on October 1, 2018, setting the lease term as KRW 30 million, monthly rent of KRW 30 million, KRW 300,000, management fee of KRW 400,000, waterworks fee of KRW 50,000, and KRW 200,000, and KRW 3,950,000 (excluding value-added tax). In the event that the contract is terminated, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement to recover the leased portion of the instant case to the original state and return it to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant lease”).
B. While the Defendant did not pay the rent of KRW 24,365,00 by December 9, 2017, the Defendant did not pay the said rent thereafter. The cost of restoration under Article 5 of the instant lease agreement is KRW 9,570,000.
[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts, the lease contract of this case was terminated upon termination of May 28, 2018, on which the duplicate of the complaint of this case containing the expression of intent of termination was delivered to the Defendant. Thus, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the leased portion of this case to the Plaintiff and pay the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 30,00,000 after deducting the deposit deposit money from KRW 28,323,064 and the portion of the lease of this case from May 29, 2018 to December 9, 2017, with the overdue rent of KRW 24,38,064 [=4,345,00 x five months x 19/31 day)] and the restoration cost of KRW 9,570,00 in total from KRW 58,323,064, the remainder of KRW 30,000,000 from May 29, 2018 to KRW 300,300.
B. The Plaintiff sought 4,345,00 won per month for unjust enrichment after the termination of the instant lease agreement, but there is no obligation to pay management fees, water supply fees, and warehouse usage fees exceeding the monthly rent.
3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.