Text
1. At the same time, the defendant receives KRW 40,000,000 from the plaintiffs, and at the same time, real estate stated in the attached list to the plaintiffs.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On March 23, 2010, the Plaintiffs were the owners of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”). On March 23, 2010, the Plaintiffs entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant on the condition that (a) part (A) of 165 square meters of the instant five-story of the instant real estate connects each point of the items in sequence, which is indicated in the separate sheet No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 1, the lease deposit amount of KRW 40 million, monthly rent of KRW 50,000 ( separate sheet of value-added tax), monthly management fee of KRW 30,000 (excluding value-added tax), monthly rental fee of KRW 30,000,000 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).
The defendant has paid the lease deposit in full and used the real estate in this case.
B. The Defendant paid only 880,000 won (including value-added tax) as rent and management expenses for ten-months, and did not pay any more rent and management expenses.
C. On March 13, 2014, the Plaintiffs sent to the Defendant the content-certified mail that the instant lease agreement is terminated on the grounds of the delinquency in rent for at least two years.
[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entry of evidence A1 through 3 (including branch numbers if there are branch numbers), purport of the whole pleadings]
2. Determination
A. According to the facts found in the judgment as to the cause of the claim, the instant lease contract was lawfully terminated by the Defendant’s expression of intention of termination on March 13, 2014, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the leased part of this case to the Plaintiffs. From February 9, 2011 to June 8, 2014, the Defendant is obligated to pay 35.2 million won (=80,000 won x 40 months) and delay damages (=80,000 won x 880,000 won x 40 months), and from June 9, 2014 to June 8, 2014, the lease contract of this case is obligated to return unjust enrichment equivalent to the management expenses.
B. Judgment on the Defendant’s assertion (1)