beta
Text
1. The Defendants deliver to the Plaintiff the buildings listed in the attached list.
2. The Defendants jointly do so to the Plaintiff:
(a) 74.4
Reasons
On October 12, 2011, the Plaintiff leased the building listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant building”) to the Defendants by setting the lease deposit of KRW 100 million, monthly rent of KRW 4,950,00 (including value-added tax), from November 1, 2011 to October 30, 2016, and the Defendants paid the Plaintiff the monthly rent from November 201 to October 30, 201. The fact that the monthly rent from December 2014 was not paid to the Plaintiff is either a dispute between the parties, or the purport of the entire pleadings from the evidence Nos. 1 and 2. The fact that the Plaintiff served on the Defendant on June 10, 2016 that the copy of the complaint of this case, including the Plaintiff’s expression of intent to terminate the said lease on the grounds of the said Defendants’ delay, is clear.
According to the above facts, the above lease contract is deemed to have been lawfully terminated by the Plaintiff’s declaration of intent to terminate the contract. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the Defendants are jointly obligated to deliver the building in this case to the Plaintiff, and the Defendants jointly have the obligation to jointly pay the Plaintiff the rent in arrears amounting to KRW 74,250,00 ( KRW 4,950,000 x 15 months) from December 31, 2014 to February 2016, as requested by the Plaintiff, 15% per annum from June 11, 2016 to the day of complete payment, as agreed by the Plaintiff, to pay the Plaintiff the delayed rent in arrears at the rate of KRW 4,950,00,00 from March 31, 2016 to the day of complete delivery of the building in this case, and the amount of delay damages at the rate of KRW 4,950,00 from March 31, 2016 to February 20.
As to this, the Defendants asserted that the Plaintiff’s claim in excess of the above amount is unreasonable, since it was adjusted to KRW 4,000,000 as the monthly rent as stipulated in the above lease agreement.
However, since there is no evidence to prove the above assertion by the Defendants, the above assertion is rejected.
Thus, the plaintiff's claim is justified, and all of them are accepted.