beta
Text
1. The Defendant: (a) from November 15, 2015 to November 18, 2015, the third floor of 25.79 square meters and the fourth floor of 4 stories indicated in the attached Table from the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On August 15, 2015, the Plaintiff leased (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) a lease deposit of KRW 5 million, monthly rent of KRW 200,000,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 200,000,000 from August 15, 2015 to August 14, 2017, to the Defendant, as indicated in the attached list owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant building”).
The Plaintiff received KRW 5 million from the Defendant under the instant lease agreement.
B. According to the instant lease agreement, the lessor may terminate the lease agreement if the lessee fails to pay the rent more than twice consecutively.
C. The Defendant paid to the Plaintiff the difference from August 15, 2015 to November 14, 2015, but did not pay the difference after November 15, 2015.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 2 and 3 (including additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts, the Defendant delayed the payment of rent under the instant lease agreement at least twice after November 15, 2015, and the Plaintiff’s termination of the instant lease agreement on April 26, 2016, on which the copy of the complaint of this case seeking the delivery of the instant building was served on the grounds of the Defendant’s delinquency in rent. As such, the Defendant is obligated to receive from the Plaintiff the remainder of the rent calculated at the rate of KRW 5 million from the deposit to November 15, 2015 to the delivery date of the instant building, and at the same time deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff, with the payment of the remainder after deducting the amount of rent calculated at the rate of KRW 20,000 from the deposit for lease deposit to KRW 5 million and the unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent.
(Plaintiff asserted the deduction of rent from August 15, 2015, but the fact that the Defendant paid the Plaintiff the rent to November 14, 2015 is as seen earlier. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit).
The defendant is based on the lease contract of this case, such as the plaintiff's setting of CCTVs and water tank water leakages, and the suspension of the building of this case.