beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 64,118,33 of the Plaintiff and its related KRW 5% per annum from December 27, 2016 to August 10, 2017.
Reasons
1. The facts below the underlying facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the statements in Gap evidence 1 to 16 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 1 to 17, and Gap witness's testimony.
The Plaintiff is the owner of the land and the building on the ground (hereinafter “instant real estate”). The Defendant is a specialized credit financial business company registered for facility leasing business under the Specialized Credit Financial Business Act, which is the owner of the machines listed in the attached sheet, such as presses installed on the first floor and the second floor of the factory building among the instant real estate (hereinafter “instant machines”).
Of the instant real estate, the first Dong of a factory building among the instant real estate is one story of 99.84 square meters and 1130.82 square meters, and the second Dong of a factory building is one story of 491.32 square meters, and the third Dong of a factory building is 440.80 square meters and 96.00 square meters, and the fourth Dong of a factory building is composed of 1 story of 23.80 square meters.
In light of the characteristics of the instant real estate used as a factory, it is difficult to separately sell or lease the parts other than the first floor and the second floor of the factory building with the instant machinery installed.
B. On July 13, 2015, the Plaintiff purchased the instant real estate from Nonparty 1, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as “scambling system”) and concluded a lease agreement with the scambling system on August 5, 2015 to lease KRW 26,350,000 monthly rent of KRW 290,000 from August 4, 2018 (hereinafter referred to as “instant lease agreement”).
From July 13, 2015, the lusciste was used by leasing and using the instant real estate from July 13, 2015. From March 2016, the vehicle began to be in arrears, and around June 2016, the Plaintiff expressed its intention to terminate the instant lease contract to the Plaintiff.
Accordingly, around July 4, 2016, the instant lease contract between the Plaintiff and the lusm tespheroid was terminated.
C. On the other hand, the defendant.