beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 3,047,577 as well as 5% per annum from May 26, 2014 to November 1, 2016 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On June 6, 2013, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with respect to the lease deposit amounting to KRW 50,000,000, and the lease period from June 7, 2013 to June 6, 2015, with respect to the lease deposit amounting to KRW 3,200,000,000 for a house of 195.3 square meters of detached house of one floor in the Pyeongtaek-si roof of the ground steel frame C, which is owned by the Defendant, at Singu-si (hereinafter “instant building”).
B. On September 30, 2013, the Defendant loaned KRW 30,000,000 to the Plaintiff by 2% per month interest and by November 30, 2013 (hereinafter “instant loan”).
C. On February 10, 2014, the Plaintiff and the Defendant newly concluded a lease agreement with a deposit of KRW 50,000,000 as KRW 20,000,000, and a monthly rent of KRW 3,200,00 (Additional tax separate) as KRW 3,50,000 (Additional Tax separate).
From February 2014, the Plaintiff did not pay rent to the Defendant under the instant lease agreement.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendant, at the time of entering into the instant lease agreement, had the purpose of the instant building changed from a detached house to a neighborhood living facility (repair store). However, the Plaintiff and the Defendant did not implement it and the Plaintiff agreed on the instant lease agreement around March 2014, and the Plaintiff delivered the instant building to the Defendant. As the Plaintiff transferred the instant building to the Defendant, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the Plaintiff a rent of KRW 7,370,00 (3,520,000 deducting the rental deposit amount of KRW 3,850,000 (3,520,000,000 and delay damages for the amount of KRW 12,630,00,000, after deducting the rental deposit of the instant lease agreement from KRW 20,000,000, which was due to the lack of electric facilities of the instant building, and thus, did not change the Plaintiff’s use of the instant building.