beta
Text
1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.
The defendant shall pay KRW 9,584,300 to the plaintiff as well as May 29, 2018.
Reasons
1. Determination on the cause of claim and defense
A. From January 2016 to December 2017, the Defendant filed a claim for the payment of rent with the Plaintiff for a period of two years, the fact that the Plaintiff leased KRW 5 million per annum from the Plaintiff’s 2nd house Down-si (hereinafter “instant building”) for operating the lodging business for the lodging business, is not a dispute between the parties, and thus, the Defendant is obliged to pay KRW 10 million for the two-year rent of the instant building, which was unpaid to the Plaintiff, barring special circumstances.
B. The Plaintiff filed a claim for return of unjust enrichment. The Plaintiff sought the return of the said money already paid to the Defendant on the ground that he did not participate in the business, which was paid KRW 4 million as a part of participation in the environmental improvement support project in the Gangnam-si Accommodation Accommodation, and that he did not participate in the business. As such, the Plaintiff paid KRW 4 million to the Defendant on August 4, 2017 as a part of participation in the additional accommodation support project, and the Defendant filed an application for the payment of the said KRW 4 million with the contract money in Gangnam-si, while the Defendant was paid the said KRW 4 million with the contract money in the construction contract money in the E company, and then revoked the said contract, and then returned KRW 3.6 million from the E company to the Plaintiff. The Defendant is obligated to return the said KRW 3.6 million to the Plaintiff with unjust enrichment.
I would like to say.
In regard to this, the defendant alleged that the above KRW 3.6 million was used as the payment for the mining work at the plaintiff's order, but there is no evidence to acknowledge this, so this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.
C. The defendant's assertion and judgment agreed to bear the cost of maintenance and repair of the building of this case, and paid KRW 18,064,390 as stated in the construction specifications of the building of this case by item to maintain and repair the building of this case, and received KRW 5,210,00 from the plaintiff. Thus, the difference is 12,854,390 from the plaintiff's claim amount.