beta
Text
1. The Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff is indicated in the attached Table 1 list to the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the appointed party.
Reasons
Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence 1-1 through Eul evidence 4, and Eul evidence 1 (including evidence with serial numbers), as to the claim of this lawsuit, the plaintiff leased on May 19, 2014 the real estate stated in the attached Table 1 list (the indication of real estate) to the defendant on May 19, 2014, with a deposit of KRW 20 million, monthly rent of KRW 1.3 million, June 30, 2014, and five years from June 30, 2014; the defendant failed to pay the rent of KRW 24,381,250 in total from January 1, 2015 to July 17, 2017; the defendant can recognize the fact that the above real estate is occupied and used as of the date of the closing of argument.
On July 17, 2017, a copy of the complaint stating the Plaintiff’s declaration of intention to terminate the lease contract on the grounds of the Defendant’s default on rent, etc. was delivered to the Defendant, and the lease contract was lawfully terminated.
From May 22, 2017, the amount of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent or rent, which the Defendant acquired 2/21 shares at auction, shall be 19/21 percent of the above 1.3 million won.
Since both the plaintiff and the designated parties are co-owners with 19/21 shares of real estate, the defendant's exclusive possession and use can be excluded as preservation activities.
The defendant asserts that it is impossible for the plaintiff to use the rent for the purpose of lease due to garbage, wastes, ratss, and illegal structure removal orders, boundary disputes, ground water boiler stoves failure, and stoves failure, so it is improper for the plaintiff to use the rent for the leased purpose. However, the photographs of Nos. 3, 9, and 10 are insufficient to recognize the rent, and there is no other evidence.
Although it is argued that the deduction from the lease deposit would be the result of the defendant's default of rent, there is no reason in the legal reasoning.
Thus, the defendant is liable to deliver the above real estate to the plaintiff and the selected parties as the legal effect following the termination, and ② the remaining overdue rent of KRW 24,381,250 from the overdue rent of KRW 24,381,250 until July 17, 2017, after deducting the deposit of KRW 20,000,000.