beta
Text
1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) paid KRW 19,942,170 to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the Plaintiff’s payment thereof from July 12, 2017 to July 24, 2018.
Reasons
A. The Plaintiff’s deposit should be deducted from the deposit.
[B] From 22,509,442 won (i.e., KRW 50,00,00-27,490,558) to 22,509,442 won (i.e., KRW 50,000-27,490,558) to 3) the Defendant occupied the instant store by July 5, 2017 after the termination of the instant lease agreement, the unjust enrichment from the possession will not remain the deposit to be returned to the Plaintiff if the Plaintiff deducts the amount of unjust enrichment equivalent to the same amount as indicated in the following 3).
According to the facts acknowledged earlier, the Defendant withdrawn from the end of June 2017 and made a report on the closure of July 1, 2017. The obligation to return unjust enrichment is recognized only for the period until June 30, 2017, for which the instant store was actually used and used.
When calculating the amount of unjust enrichment to be returned, 11,142,170 won shall be as follows:
The amount of unjust enrichment during the period of use (rents and management fees) calculated by adding the principal to December 12, 2017; 3,851, 612, 3,851, 6125, 6125, 970, 000*20/31 December 5, 2017. 5,920,000; 15,7416; 5,970,000; 21,711, 612; 5,970,000,000,000,000,000,627,681, 620,000,612; -25,425,427, 170,017, 2017; -35,00,000,681,612,527,017;
D. According to the evidence mentioned above 1), Gap evidence Nos. 9-6, Gap evidence No. 13, and evidence No. 14, the defendant's removal of toilets in front of the instant shop and necessary to restore them by drilling the hole in the system windows, and for this purpose, the plaintiff's payment of KRW 8,800,000 may be recognized. 2) Other evidence, such as the estimate, photograph (Evidence No. 9, 10, 12, etc., submitted by the plaintiff alone, is insufficient to recognize that the restoration is required to be made in the amount of KRW 30,50,000, as alleged by the plaintiff, and there is no other evidence.
3. In addition, the plaintiff asserts that the defendant is liable for damages corresponding to the amount of reduced rent due to incomplete reinstatement and the amount of rent corresponding to the period of restitution, but only the plaintiff's submission of evidence alone.