beta
Text
The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The parties' assertion
A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff leased the instant real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) to E, but terminated the said real estate due to the Plaintiff’s failure to pay the deposit. At the request of the Defendants, the Plaintiff leased the instant real estate to Defendant B with a deposit of KRW 20 million, monthly rent of KRW 500,000,000, and accepted the sub-lease of the instant real estate under the same condition to Defendant B.
Since then, Defendant B prepared a lease agreement without setting a rent, but it is null and void as it was falsely prepared by the Defendants so that the Defendants can receive a deposit from the sub-lessee E.
However, Defendant B did not pay the remainder of KRW 10 million out of the deposit, and did not pay rent from February 201, the Plaintiff expressed his intent to terminate the lease agreement to Defendant B on November 201.
Therefore, the Defendants are obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the refund of unjust enrichment equivalent to the unpaid rent, remaining after deducting the deposit of KRW 10 million, which has already been paid (the sum of KRW 5 million per month from September 16, 2012 to July 15, 2013 and KRW 500,000 per month from July 16, 2013 to the delivery date of the instant real estate), and to pay damages for delay to KRW 2 million, such as restitution of unjust enrichment from September 16, 2012 to July 15, 2013, including restitution of unjust enrichment from KRW 5 million, and restitution of unjust enrichment from September 16, 2012 to July 15, 2013.
B. Defendant C, who leased the third floor above the instant real estate to the Plaintiff, subrogated for the lease deposit amounting to KRW 10 million to be returned to the Plaintiff F before the said third floor, and sublet the instant real estate to E in the name of Defendant B to secure the claim for reimbursement of KRW 10 million against the Plaintiff.
However, this case around November 2010.