beta
Text
1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.
The defendant.
Reasons
1. The fact of recognition that, around January 2007, the Plaintiff leased part of the two houses of light-to-land C-to-land light-to-land light-to-land light-to-land steel structure owned by the Plaintiff to the Defendant (hereinafter “the lease of this case”) after an oral agreement that there is no deposit (hereinafter “the lease of this case”) does not dispute between the parties.
2. Summary of parties' arguments;
A. On January 208, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to increase the monthly rent of this case to KRW 300,000,000. The Defendant agreed to pay the rent of this case to KRW 3.6 million by January of the following year for the payment method of the rent of this case around January 2010.
Accordingly, the defendant paid each year to the plaintiff the rent from 2010 to 2017, but did not pay the rent in the year 2018 and left the place on January 18, 2019.
To seek the payment of unpaid rent of KRW 3.6 million in the year 2018 and interest for delay.
B. Defendant Won and the Defendant agreed to increase the rent to KRW 300,000 per month on around 208, and paid the monthly rent to KRW 1 year by a prepaid method, not by the Plaintiff’s assertion, and paid the monthly rent in cash on January of each year by paying it in advance at the beginning of January.
3. The judgment is based on the following: (a) there is no dispute between the parties, or is recognized as the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 4 and 9, and (b) there is no other agreement between the parties, and (c) the method of paying rent under the Civil Act is determined as the subsequent payment, unless otherwise agreed by the parties, and (d) the lease of this case is determined as the subsequent payment without the deposit; and (c) the defendant does not prove any support of the agreement to pay rent in advance; (c) in light of the fact that the defendant has agreed to pay the first one-year rent in advance pursuant to the lease of this case, it is disputed whether the first one-year rent in advance is the subsequent payment, but the defendant is the first one.