beta
Text
1. The defendant delivers to the plaintiff the building indicated in the attached list, and from November 1, 2015, the above building shall be transferred to the plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Presumed factual basis
A. On September 1, 2014, the Plaintiff leased each of the buildings listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the instant buildings”) to the Defendant, with a deposit of KRW 32 million, monthly rent of KRW 32 million (excluding value-added tax), management expenses of KRW 513,00 (including value-added tax, electricity, and water supply fees, etc.) and the period from September 1, 2014 to August 31, 2016 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”), and received KRW 32 million from the Defendant.
B. On August 13, 2015, a copy of the complaint of this case stating the Plaintiff’s declaration of intent to terminate the instant lease agreement was served on the Defendant on the grounds that the Defendant had failed to pay two or more occasions due to the instant lease agreement.
C. As of the date of closing argument of the instant case, the Defendant occupied and used each of the instant buildings.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, and purport of whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings as to the cause of the claim in the evidence Nos. 3 through 6 and No. 4, the Defendant’s 83,908 out of the rent and management expenses for January 2015 (i.e., value-added tax on the rent and management expenses for KRW 462,608 unpaid management expenses (= value-added tax on the rent and management expenses for KRW 371,308) and the rent and management expenses for February 2, 2015 up to October 2015 [36,758,700] = Value-added tax 1.1 x 9 months] 】 Value-added tax 37,592,608 x 9 months x 37,592,608 x 9 months prior to the filing of the lawsuit in this case. Thus, the lease in this case was lawfully terminated due to the termination of the lease in this case by the Defendant, etc.
(Defendant alleged that he paid KRW 5 million to the Plaintiff on October 28, 2015, under the pretext of rent, etc., but it is not sufficient to recognize it only with the statement in subparagraph 4-4, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it). Accordingly, the Defendant’s instant case to the Plaintiff.