beta
Text
1. The defendant delivers the real estate stated in the attached Form to the plaintiff, and from September 20, 2019 to September 20, 300.
Reasons
1. Case summary and judgment
A. On August 30, 2016, the Plaintiff leased real estate listed in the attached Form (hereinafter “instant real estate”) owned by the Plaintiff to the Defendant as a deposit amount of KRW 20,00,000, monthly rent of KRW 300,000, and the period from September 20, 2016 to September 19, 2018. The Defendant did not pay rent of KRW 10,000,000 out of the above deposit, and the fact that the Plaintiff expressed his intention to terminate the said lease over several occasions since 2018 is recognized by comprehensively taking into account the following purport of arguments as a whole: (a) there is no dispute between the parties, or the fact that the Plaintiff expressed his intention to cancel the said lease contract to the Defendant on several occasions after 2018.
Therefore, since the above lease contract was terminated on the ground of the defendant's delinquency in rent, the defendant is obligated to deliver the real estate of this case to the plaintiff and pay the amount calculated by the ratio of KRW 300,000 per month from September 20, 2019 to the completion date of delivery of the real estate of this case, as the plaintiff seeks by the plaintiff (it takes into account the deduction from KRW 10,000,000, out of the overdue rent in arrears calculated from November 20, 2016, reflecting the delayed occupancy of the defendant due to the reason of the delay in rent or rent of this case, etc.).
B. As the Defendant agreed to receive director expenses from the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff asserted that it is impossible to comply with the Plaintiff’s claim for delivery until being paid such expenses. However, the Plaintiff’s statement in the evidence No. 1 alone is insufficient to acknowledge the conclusion of the above agreement, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. The Defendant’s agreement to pay director expenses was
There is no ground to view that the obligation to pay is a prior performance or simultaneous performance relationship with the defendant's obligation to deliver the real estate of this case.
The defendant's argument is without merit.
2. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.