beta
Text
The Defendant, as the Plaintiff
(a) deliver a part of the building (A) indicated in the attached drawing(s) to 37.02 square meters;
B. 140,000 Won and April 2020
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On September 2, 2019, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with the Defendant, setting the period from August 31, 2019 to August 30, 2021, with respect to the building indicated in the drawing(a) section 37.02 square meters (hereinafter “instant building”) as KRW 1 million and monthly rent (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).
B. On August 31, 2019, the former contract, the Plaintiff delivered the instant building to the Defendant.
C. From December 21, 2019 to the date of the closing of the instant argument, the Defendant only paid KRW 100,000 out of the monthly rent, and did not pay the remainder of the monthly rent.
On April 20, 2020, the Plaintiff expressed his/her intention to terminate the lease contract to the Defendant on the grounds that the lease is unpaid.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of whole pleadings
2. According to the facts of recognition of the cause of claim, the instant lease agreement was lawfully terminated on April 20, 2020 by the Plaintiff’s declaration of intent to terminate the contract for reasons of the Defendant’s unpaid rent.
Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff, and ② as the Plaintiff is the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay the remainder of KRW 140,000,000,000 after deducting one million from the lease deposit (i.e., KRW 310,000 x 4 months) from the rent unpaid from December 21, 2019 to April 20, 2020 (i.e., KRW 310,000,000) (the Plaintiff is obligated to pay the remainder of KRW 1.40,000,000,000,000 from the lease deposit (i.e., KRW 4,000). This part of the claim is rejected as there is no evidence to acknowledge the assertion). ③ From April 21, 2020 to the completion date of delivery of the instant building.
In this regard, the defendant tried to pay the difference, and the plaintiff alleged that the situation was this situation with the wind to illegally cut off or cut off, but there is no evidence to acknowledge that argument.