beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 88,00,000 and its related amount are 5% per annum from September 2, 2019 to July 1, 2020.
Reasons
1. If the purport of the entire pleadings is added to the evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and evidence Nos. 3 as to the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff: (a) on February 18, 2013, the Plaintiff leased part of the first floor of the building located in Seocheon-si C (hereinafter “instant building”) from the Defendant for a deposit of KRW 90,00,000; (b) on February 18, 2013, the monthly rent of KRW 4,000,000; and (c) on July 31, 2015 from February 18, 2013 to July 31, 2015; and (d) on July 31, 2019, the said lease was renewed and the term of the contract expires.
According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay the deposit amount of KRW 90,000,000 to the plaintiff and delay damages therefor, except in extenuating circumstances.
2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion
A. The Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff did not pay unjust enrichment from August 18, 2019. As such, there is no dispute between the parties that the Plaintiff did not pay unjust enrichment from the use of the instant building from August 18, 2019 to September 1, 2019, the delivery date of the instant building. Therefore, the Defendant’s unjust enrichment amounting to KRW 2,00,000 (i.e., monthly rent 4,000,000 x 15 days) should be deducted from the deposit.
B. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 88,00,000 won per annum under the Civil Act until July 1, 2020, and 12% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, which is the date following the day when the Plaintiff delivered the instant building to the Defendant, for which it is deemed reasonable to dispute over the existence or scope of the Defendant’s obligation to perform, from September 2, 2019, the following day after the Plaintiff delivered the instant building to the Defendant.
3. As such, the plaintiff's claim is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remainder is dismissed as there is no ground for appeal.