beta
Text
1. The defendant
(a) deliver the real estate listed in the separate sheet;
B. 800,000 won and from December 1, 2014, annexed hereto.
Reasons
In full view of the facts that there is no dispute over the determination of the cause of the claim, and the purport of the whole entries and arguments by Gap 1 and 3, the plaintiff, on January 26, 2013, prepared and issued a certificate of confirmation that "the plaintiff should pay 6.3 million won monthly rent as of June 30, 2014 to the defendant as of January 26, 2013, lease deposit amount of KRW 10 million, monthly rent of KRW 1 million (payment as of February 1, 2013), and lease period of February 1, 2013 to February 1, 2015; the defendant delayed the monthly rent and management expenses, etc.; and the defendant, as of April 30, 2014, issued the certificate to the plaintiff that "the plaintiff should pay 6.3 million won monthly rent as of June 30, 2014 to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff was in arrears at least the above period of July 2, 2014."
Judgment
Therefore, since the above lease contract was lawfully terminated due to the defendant's delinquency in payment, the defendant is obligated to deliver 307 to the plaintiff with the obligation to restore it to the original state.
Meanwhile, on January 2, 2015, the Plaintiff was paid KRW 500,000 as part of the overdue rent.
Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the remaining 5.8 million won out of the unpaid monthly rent by June 30, 2014 (i.e., KRW 6., KRW 6.3 million - KRW 500,000 received on January 2, 2015) and the amount equivalent to the monthly rent from July 1 to 307 from July 1, 2014 and the rent from possession and use from KRW 307,000 per month to the Plaintiff at the rate of KRW 1 million per month.
(The amount of profit from the possession and use of ordinary real estate is equivalent to the rent of that real estate. The facts of the rent of 1,00,000 that is the monthly rent of 307 at the time of the termination of the lease contract are as seen earlier, and thereafter the rent is confirmed to be the same amount as that of the subsequent rent). The defendant's assertion asserted that the defendant cannot deliver 307 units of the lease deposit until the refund of the lease deposit is made. Thus, the defendant's decision as to the defendant's assertion is based on the defense that the lease deposit cannot be returned.