beta
Text
1. The part against the plaintiff falling under the following order of payment among the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked:
2...
Reasons
1. The court's explanation on this part of the facts of recognition is with merit of the judgment of the court of first instance.
1. D.
Until the closing date of the pleadings in this case, the defendant has changed to the date of the closure of pleadings in the court of first instance, and therefore, it is identical to the corresponding part of the pleadings.
2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion
A. According to the above facts of recognition, since the lease contract of this case was terminated on April 7, 2013 due to the expiration of the period, the defendant is obligated to deliver the apartment of this case to the plaintiff, barring any special circumstances.
However, according to the appraiser C's appraisal result, since the monthly rent of 2,783,00 won from April 8, 2013 to September 16, 2013, the defendant is obligated to issue an order to the plaintiff for the apartment of this case and return unjust enrichment of 2,783,00 won per month from April 9, 2013 to the completion date of the above name limit.
I would like to say.
B. In addition, the Plaintiff seek for the payment of unjust enrichment or damages from April 8, 2013 to April 9, 2014, which is the date following the end of the instant lease contract, with respect to the claim for the payment of money.
In other words, the Plaintiff asserts that from April 8, 2013 to April 9, 2013, the amount equivalent to the monthly rent of KRW 506,604,00 out of the deposit money deposited by the Plaintiff from November 5, 2013, deducted the amount equivalent to the interest calculated by the interest rate calculated by the interest rate on a commercial bank deposit in relation to the deposit money from the monthly rent of KRW 2,783,00,00 per month calculated by the rate of KRW 1,59,00 per month, and the amount equivalent to the monthly rent of KRW 33,396,00 from November 6, 2013 to April 9, 2014, which deposited KRW 2,783,00 from the monthly rent of KRW 2,707,302 deducted the amount equivalent to the interest rate calculated by the interest rate on a commercial bank deposit in relation to the said money from the interest rate of KRW 33,302 per month.
The plaintiff argues only that it is the return of unjust enrichment or compensation for damages, and the defendant.