beta
Text
1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.
A. Of the buildings listed in the separate sheet, each point of the separate sheet Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6, and 1 is followed in sequence.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On October 2013, the Plaintiff leased (hereinafter “the instant lease”) KRW 400,000 per month to the part (Ga) (Ga) (Ground 2) and 36 square meters (hereinafter “instant lease building”) in the attached Form No. 1, 2, 5, 6, and 1 among the buildings (multi-family house) indicated in the attached Table list (multi-family house) connected each point in sequence, to the leased building (hereinafter “instant lease”).
B. From February 2016, the Defendant did not pay monthly rent for at least two months, and the Plaintiff, around March 14, 2016, notified the Defendant that the instant lease contract will be terminated (hereinafter “instant termination notice”), and the instant termination notice reached the Defendant at business times.
[Judgment of the court below] The ground for recognition is without merit, Gap 1 through 7, and the purport of whole pleadings
2. According to the above facts, the instant lease contract was lawfully terminated by the notice of termination of the instant lease contract, barring any other special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to return unjust enrichment of the clinical party calculated by the ratio of KRW 400,000 per month from February 12, 2016 to June 2016, to the Plaintiff, and KRW 2,000,000,000,000 for the unpaid rent for five months from February 12, 2016 to June 2016.
As to this, the defendant asserts to the effect that "the defendant paid 1.5 million won to the plaintiff. Therefore, from February 2, 2012 to May 2012, 1.5 million won out of the total monthly rent of 1.6 million won from February 2012 to May 2012, 1.5 million won should be deducted from the above lease deposit, and the remainder of 100 million won should be paid separately by the defendant to the plaintiff's spouse, the part claiming monthly rent of the above 4-month out of the plaintiff's claim is without merit."
(However, from June 2016, the defendant does not dispute the fact that the rent was overdue. Therefore, the evidence submitted in this case alone is that the defendant paid the lease deposit to the plaintiff.