beta
Text
1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.
(a) deliver the real estate listed in the separate sheet;
(b) 12,200,000 won and October 1, 2017.
Reasons
In full view of the purport of the entire arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, it is recognized as the same facts as the entry of the cause of the claim in attached Form.
According to the above facts, the lease contract of this case was terminated on January 7, 2018, on which the duplicate of the complaint of this case was served on the defendant, due to the overdue delay of two or more times by the defendant.
Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to deliver to the Plaintiff real estate listed in the separate sheet, and pay to the Plaintiff 12,200,000 won for monthly rent in arrears from September 30, 2017 to September 30, 2017 [3 months (from January 2015 to September 2017) x 400,00 won] - 300,00 won (from January 33, 2015 to September 2017) - 300,00 won (from June 30, 2015) - 40,000 won (from August 13, 2015) under the instant lease from October 1, 2017 to the completion date of delivery of the said real estate at the rate of 40,000 won for monthly rent or unjust enrichment equivalent to the amount under the instant lease.
In regard to this, the defendant argued to the effect that it is unfair for the plaintiff to terminate the lease contract of this case on the ground of delinquency in rent, and to claim monthly rent in arrears and delivery of the above real estate. However, even if the plaintiff's act did not so, it is difficult to conclude that it is impossible to use and benefit from the above real estate to the extent that it is impossible for the defendant to refuse to pay monthly rent in accordance with the lease contract of this case due to the above act of the plaintiff to use and benefit from the above real estate to the extent that it is possible for the defendant to refuse to pay the monthly rent in accordance with the lease of this case. Thus, the defendant's above assertion does not seem to have any motive or reason, since it is difficult to conclude that the plaintiff's act was in a situation where it is difficult to use and benefit from the above real estate to the extent that the defendant can refuse to pay the monthly rent in accordance with the lease of this case.
If so, the plaintiff's claim is accepted within the above scope of recognition, and is remaining.