beta
Text
1. The defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff)'s appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff.
purport, purport, and.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On May 2013, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with C on the Daegu Suwon-gu D Building E (hereinafter “instant shopping mall”) with the following terms:
(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). - A lessor: Defendant - Term of lease: From June 25, 2013 to 24 months: 15,000,000 won - Rent: 400,000 won per month (payment on June 25, 201)
B. On June 14, 2013, the Defendant paid a deposit for lease to C, and operated the instant commercial building as a library upon delivery.
C. On January 26, 2015, the Plaintiff: (a) completed the registration of ownership transfer for the instant commercial building on the grounds of sale; and (b) agreed to extend the term of the instant lease agreement with the Defendant by June 24, 2018 when succeeding to the lessor status of the instant lease agreement.
On March 12, 2018, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a written peremptory notice to the effect that the instant lease agreement expired as of June 24, 2018, and that the Plaintiff did not intend to renew the instant lease by content-certified mail. The said written peremptory notice reached the Defendant on March 13, 2018.
E. On February 21, 2019, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 15,000,000 as the leased amount with the Defendant as the deposited person, and the Defendant received it.
F. On April 9, 2019, the Defendant handed over the instant commercial building to the Plaintiff.
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. In the first instance court’s trial scope, the Plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendant for a counterclaim against the Defendant for reimbursement of KRW 5,194,00,00 for the amount of unjust enrichment equivalent to rent (or damages caused by illegal possession from February 21, 2019), ② unpaid electricity charges of KRW 30,570, ③ unpaid water rates of KRW 26,540, ④ unpaid water rates of KRW 200,532,110. The Defendant filed a claim against the Plaintiff for a counterclaim for reimbursement of KRW 5,194,00 due to interference with the opportunity to collect the premium.