1. The Defendant’s KRW 16,09,123 as well as the Plaintiff’s KRW 5% per annum from August 26, 2014 to February 13, 2015.

Basic Facts

On February 22, 2011, the Plaintiff leased the unit C4 floor (hereinafter “instant building”) owned by the Plaintiff to the Defendant during the period from March 7, 2011 to March 7, 2013, by setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 50 million, monthly rent of KRW 2.2 million (excluding value-added tax), monthly rent of KRW 2.2 million, and the lease term of the Plaintiff’s lease.

At the time of the conclusion of the above lease agreement, the monthly rent was to be paid from April 1, 201, and the first five months was to reduce the monthly rent by 200,000 won.

The Defendant paid only KRW 24.2 million out of the monthly rent from May 1, 2012 to May 22, 2012 during the term of the above lease agreement.

The above lease contract was implicitly renewed, and the agreement was concluded on October 2013 to the early police officer, and the defendant removed from the building of this case to the early police officer on October 2013.

The Defendant operated the reading room in the instant building, and only carried out the reading room book at the time of the eviction, but did not restore the remaining interiors, such as partitions or electric facilities, to its original state, and the Plaintiff restored the original state of KRW 8,613,00.

[Grounds for recognition] Each of Gap's entries and the purport of the whole pleadings in Gap's 1-6, 7-1-7-12, 8, 9, 10-1-1-1-1-11-3.

Plaintiff’s assertion

Under the premise that the Defendant possessed the instant building up to now, the Plaintiff sought payment of KRW 38,377,040,00,000, monthly rent of KRW 26,400,000, electricity rate of KRW 437,90,000, and KRW 17,545,00,000, which was the monthly rent of KRW 92,777,07,00, which was the monthly rent of KRW 32,650,00, which was unpaid during the contract period, to the Defendant, until March 2014.

According to the records in Gap 7-8, the time of delivery of the building of this case by item, the fact that the building of this case was prepared and delivered in the management office of the building of this case, stating that the building of this case was a public room from October 2013. Thus, barring any special circumstance, it is reasonable to deem that the defendant occupied the building of this case by the end of September 2013.

Therefore, the defendant, since October 2013, is in this case.