beta
Text
1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.
A. Of the first floor of the building listed in the attached list, indication 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 1 of the attached list.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The building indicated in the separate sheet is jointly owned by the Plaintiff and D. On November 28, 201, the Plaintiff was delegated by D with the authority to lease his/her share of co-ownership, and on November 28, 201, the Plaintiff leased the instant part of the instant building to the Defendant with a deposit of KRW 20 million, KRW 1.3 million monthly rent, and the period from December 27, 2011 to December 26, 2013 (hereinafter “the lease of this case”). The Plaintiff and the Defendant increased the number of rent from January 2014 to December 26, 2013 after the renewal of the lease of this case, and the Defendant is running restaurant business at the instant store until now.
B. The Defendant failed to pay the instant lease properly, and the Plaintiff intended to terminate the instant lease on the grounds of the Defendant’s delinquency in rent, and repeated maintenance at the Defendant’s request, and finally notified the Defendant of the termination of the instant lease on the grounds of delinquency in rent for more than two years on July 2, 2014, which led to reaching the Defendant around that time.
【Ground for recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-1 through 4, the purport of whole pleadings and arguments
2. Determination
A. (i) According to the facts found in the claim for the delivery of the store of this case, the lease of this case was lawfully terminated on or around July 2, 2014, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the store of this case to the Plaintiff.
In regard to this, the defendant set up a defense of the deposit and simultaneous performance of the lease of this case. However, as seen in the next section ?, the lease of this case is entirely deducted from the overdue rent or unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent of the defendant. Thus, the defendant's defense is without merit.
The Plaintiff filed a claim for the delivery of Sheet parking lot has occupied the portion of 28 square meters in the ship connected in order to each point of 7, 6, 9, 10, and 7 of the attached drawings in Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, which is used by the Defendant as a parking lot for the building listed in the attached list.