beta
Text
1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.
(a) in the case of Gyeong-do, Gyeong-do, Gyeong-do, C ground brick slive slive roof, and one-story house;
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On August 6, 2014, the Plaintiff leased to the Defendant KRW 20,000,000,000 from August 24, 2014, a lease deposit of KRW 1 million from August 23, 2014 to August 23, 2016, a lease deposit of KRW 1 million, and monthly rent of KRW 200,00,000,00,000, connected each point of 49.58 square meters in sequence 128.9 square meters in the attached Form (hereinafter “instant building”).
(hereinafter referred to as the “instant lease contract”) B.
Although the Defendant paid the Plaintiff the first one month rent, the Plaintiff did not pay the lease deposit and the rent after the second month, and the Plaintiff terminated the instant lease contract on the grounds that the Defendant’s service of a duplicate of the instant complaint was not paid for more than two months.
[Grounds for Recognition] Article 150 (3) and the main sentence of Article 150 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act
2. Determination
A. According to the facts of recognition under paragraph (1), the Defendant is obligated to order the Plaintiff to provide the instant building, which is the leased object of the instant lease agreement, and to pay the amount calculated by the ratio of KRW 200,000 per month from September 24, 2014 to the date of the order to return unjust enrichment equivalent to the unpaid rent or the rent from September 24, 2014.
B. The Plaintiff seeks reimbursement against the Defendant at the rate of KRW 200,000 per month from September 16, 2014 to September 23, 2014.
However, inasmuch as the Plaintiff voluntarily recognizes that the Defendant was paid the monthly rent for the lease of the instant building from August 24, 2014 to the Defendant, the Defendant paid the Plaintiff the rent from September 16, 2014 to September 23, 2014, and there is no assertion or proof as to the circumstance that the Defendant ought to additionally pay the rent for the said period. Therefore, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.
C. The Plaintiff seeks reimbursement against the Defendant for the lease deposit and its delay damages under the instant lease agreement.
However, a lease contract.