beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) paid KRW 12,260,000 to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and its related amount from February 6, 2014 to August 13, 2014.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On January 11, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant on a deposit amounting to KRW 40 million, monthly rent of KRW 3,300,000 (Additional Tax separately), monthly management expenses, KRW 20,000,000, and the lease term of 12 months (hereinafter “the lease agreement of this case”), and operated a restaurant called “D” at the instant store.
B. From April 11, 2013, the Defendant did not pay the rent and management expenses (hereinafter “rent”) stipulated in the instant lease agreement, and on November 13, 2013, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendant seeking payment, including the name map of the instant store and the rent from April 11, 2013. The Defendant ordered the instant store to the Plaintiff on February 6, 2014 during which the instant lawsuit was pending.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings
2. The parties' assertion
A. Under the premise that the instant lease contract was terminated by Article 8 of the instant lease contract (a lessor may immediately terminate this contract when a lessee has been in arrears on at least two occasions), the Plaintiff, the cause of the principal claim, sought payment of the unpaid rent and unjust enrichment equivalent to the amount of monthly 3.650,000 won from April 11, 2013 to February 6, 2014, the date of arrears in the instant lease contract, against the Defendant, from April 11, 2013 to February 6, 2014.
(B) The plaintiff withdrawn his claim against the defendant during the proceedings of this case.
The Defendant’s assertion and counterclaim claim that the Plaintiff paid KRW 40 million to the Plaintiff. The instant lease contract was terminated due to the expiration of the period on January 10, 2013, and the Defendant did not run its business at the instant store from May 14, 2013, and at the same time asserted that there was no obligation to return unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent from that time.