beta
Text
The judgment of the first instance, including the plaintiff's claim that has been reduced and expanded by this court, is modified as follows.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On September 2015, the Plaintiff leased to the Defendant one Dong and part of the site of the factory located in Seongbuk-gun, Seongbuk-gun, Seongbuk-gun, with a deposit of KRW 10 million, monthly rent of KRW 2.99 million ( separate value added tax), the lease period from September 11, 2015 to September 11, 2020 (hereinafter “instant contract”), and the Defendant leased the said factory to the Defendant for lease.
B. From July 2018 to August 2018, the Plaintiff agreed to reduce the monthly rent of 2.4 million won (2.640,000 won including a separate value-added tax, and a value-added tax) from the Defendant to the monthly rent of 2.4 million won, including the value-added tax, and was paid by the Defendant from the Defendant until February 10, 2019 (Provided, That the Defendant did not pay the monthly rent of 3 months from March 2018 to May 201, and the Plaintiff and the Defendant settled with the refund claim of the deposit.
iii) [Ground of recognition: Unsatisfy, entry of Gap 1 or 3 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings]
2. The party's assertion and judgment
A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay damages at the rate of 12% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, from February 11, 2019 to May 10, 2019, for the monthly rent of 7,920,000 won (=2,640,000 won x 3 months) and 7,200,000 won from June 18, 2019 following the delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case to the Plaintiff, and from November 20, 2020, for the remaining 7,000 won, the Defendant is obligated to pay damages at the rate of 12% per annum as stipulated in the aforesaid Act, from November 24, 2020 following the delivery of the copy of the application for change of the cause of the claim to the Plaintiff.
B. Defendant’s assertion 1) Defendant’s assertion (1) around December 2017, the Defendant transferred the leased object to the Plaintiff while moving the Defendant’s factory to another place, and the Plaintiff is also deemed to newly lease the leased object while consenting thereto.
In this case, the agreement of this case was actually terminated at that time.