beta
Text
All appeals by the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) and the claims extended by this court are dismissed.
Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff)-B.
Reasons
1. The reasoning for this part of the reasoning is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part of the reasoning is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Determination on the main claim
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is that Defendant B, as the lessee of Fdong stores, pay to the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 65 million after deducting KRW 100 million from the monthly rent for ten months from May 20, 2012 to April 18, 2013 or the total amount of KRW 165 million from the total amount of KRW 165 million.
Since Defendant C had arbitrarily occupied, used, and profit from, the Fdong store during the above period, he/she should pay the Plaintiff the amount of unjust enrichment equivalent to the monthly rent for the above period.
B. On April 10, 2013, as to the claim for rent for the period prior to the end of the sub-lease contract with the Fdong store, Defendant B is obligated to pay the rent to the Plaintiff as a restaurant. As seen earlier, Defendant B is obligated to pay the rent for the rent for the rent under the sub-lease contract that occurred before April 10, 2013, and Defendant B used the Fdong store until April 10, 2013. Meanwhile, Defendant B is subject to the three-year short-term extinctive prescription as the monthly rent based on the above sub-lease contract, which falls under the usage fee claim under Article 163 subparag. 1 of the Civil Act, and the three-year short-term extinctive prescription is applied. Since the three-year period has elapsed since the previous lessee was earlier from July 18, 2018 to whom the instant lawsuit was brought, Defendant B’s defense on this point has merit, and thereafter, Defendant B’s repayment of the rent for the rent to the lessee.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Da4048 Decided May 26, 2005). The lessor of the Fdong store may sublet the Plaintiff at least twice in arrears and without permission, on September 22, 2012.