beta
Text
1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.
A. Of the 1st floor of the building indicated in the attached Table 1st 293.89 square meters, indication 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 1 of the attached Form 1st 293.
Reasons
Attached Form
The facts of the cause of the claim and the facts of the cause of the claim after the change can be acknowledged in full view of the whole purport of the pleadings in each of Gap 1 through 4.
Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to transfer to the Plaintiff the portion (Ga) part (Ga) of 56.1 square meters in the ship connected each point of the attached Form No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 1 among the 1st floor of the building indicated in the attached Table No. 293,89 square meters, among the 1st floor of the building indicated in the attached Table No. 293, Nov. 17, 2015; and as requested by the Plaintiff, to the Plaintiff, the amount of KRW 66,240,00 in total of the overdue rent and management expenses for nine months from February 2, 2015 to October 2015, calculated at the rate of 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from November 1, 2015 to the completion date of the delivery of the real estate of this case; and to refund the unjust enrichment calculated at the rate of 7,360,000 won or sublease.
In regard to this, the Defendant, under the circumstance that the Plaintiff was in arrears for not less than eight months against the lessor, concluded the instant sub-lease contract by deceiving the Defendant, and the date of the first sub-lease payment was February 28, 2015, but the Defendant, on January 31, 2015, forced the Defendant to pay the base rent, forced the Defendant to transfer the instant real estate, etc., and prevented the Plaintiff from operating the instant real estate, so long as the Plaintiff’s claim of this case was unjust.
In this regard, as long as the Defendant used and made profits from the instant real estate without paying rent after entering into a sublease contract with respect to the instant real estate, the termination of the Plaintiff’s sublease contract appears to be reasonable, and there is no data to deem otherwise that the Defendant could not use or make profits from the instant real estate due to the Plaintiff’s fraud or business obstruction, and the Plaintiff partly reduced the Plaintiff’s claim to seek only rent after February 28, 2015, which was the initial date of the sublease contract.