beta
Text
1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.
(a) deliver the real estate listed in the separate sheet;
B. 50,000 won and as regards this, April 2016
Reasons
Basic Facts
A. On November 15, 2001, the Plaintiff leased real estate listed in the attached list owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant building”) to the Defendant as the period from November 20, 201 to November 19, 2003, the deposit amount of KRW 5 million, and the rent of KRW 350,000 per month. The Defendant occupied and used the instant building from around that time.
B. On May 1, 2010, the Plaintiff and the Defendant, having renewed the above lease contract several times, drafted the lease contract with the period from May 1, 2010 to April 30, 2012, the deposit amount of one million won, and the rent of 300,000 won per month (30,000 won per month).
(Provided, however, it is unclear whether the Defendant actually paid one million won to the Plaintiff at this time).
However, unlike the above contract, the defendant paid the difference between May 1, 2010 and 550,000 won per month under the agreement with the plaintiff, and did not pay the difference from March 2016. On August 1, 2016, the plaintiff notified the defendant that the above lease contract will be terminated on the ground of two or more years of pregnancys.
[Grounds for recognition] In light of the facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence No. 1-1, and Eul evidence No. 2, and the facts of the above recognition as to the grounds for the claim as to the whole purport of the pleadings, the above lease agreement was lawfully terminated by the plaintiff due to the defendant's delay of rent, barring any special circumstances, the defendant delivers the building of this case to the plaintiff, and pays 50,000 won late March 1, 2016, and delayed payment damages therefor, and is obliged to pay the overdue rent or unjust enrichment equivalent to the overdue rent or delayed payment at the rate of 50,000 won per month from April 1, 2016 to the completion date of delivery of the building of this case.
In addition to the plaintiff, the plaintiff additionally claims the overdue charge for one month, but there is no factual basis to recognize it. Therefore, this part of the claim is not accepted.
The defendant's assertion is judged on November 30, 2010.