beta
Text
1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 3,2250,000 as well as 20% per annum from October 12, 2013 to the day of complete payment.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On April 4, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant for the lease of a third party artist (hereinafter referred to as “the second party artist”) and a third party artist (hereinafter referred to as “the second party”) owned by the Plaintiff to be used at the construction site of Gangseo-gu Seoul, Gangseo-gu 67-1, Gangseodong, Gangseo-gu, Seoul, for a construction site of the 14 complex complex (the client Hansan Construction Co., Ltd.) (hereinafter referred to as “the instant lease contract”), and the main contents thereof are as follows:
- Article 2 (Lease Period) (1): Period of 12 months from April 2012 to April 2013.
(2) Where the date of equipment input is delayed, the rent shall be calculated from May 10, 2012, regardless of whether the equipment input is made, and the date on which the use of the equipment is completed shall be until it is returned to the place designated by the plaintiff on the spot.
-Article 3 (Rent and Terms of Payment): 2.7 million won per month (excluding value-added tax): The plaintiff shall claim the rent for the pertinent month to the defendant by the end of each month, and the defendant shall be paid in cash within three months.
(3) Calculation standards for rents: The defendant shall calculate the date from the date on which the defendant actually starts lease to the site, and the claim shall be based on monthly use.
(1) month of a day-to-day shall be based on 30 days). (b)
Under the instant lease agreement, the Plaintiff transferred to the Defendant the head of the first, second, and second, e.g. designated under the said contract.
C. However, even after the expiration of the term of the instant lease agreement, the Defendant continued to use KRW 1,200,000, and the Plaintiff, on May 3, 2013, notified the Defendant that the rent would be increased by KRW 7 million per lele in order to continue to use it. However, the Defendant refused to comply therewith.
Accordingly, on May 9, 2013, the Plaintiff demanded the Defendant to promptly return the 1st and 2nd Les, but the Defendant refused to comply therewith and used the 1st Les up to August 18, 2013 and the 2nd Les up to the 30th of the same month.