beta
Text
1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.
(a) Of the first floor of the Daegu-gun building, the indication of the accompanying drawings shall be as follows: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 1.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On August 18, 2016, the Plaintiff, among the first floor of the Daegu-gun Building C, leased the Defendant with a deposit of KRW 50 million, monthly rent of KRW 270,00 (excluding value-added tax), and the period from September 15, 2016 to September 14, 2018, the Plaintiff, in sequence, connected each point of the items in the attached drawings Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 103 and No. 1044 square meters (hereinafter “instant store”).
(hereinafter “instant lease”). B.
Since then, as the defendant did not pay the rent, on April 20, 2017, the plaintiff urged the defendant to pay the rent, and on July 15, 2017, the rent in arrears of the defendant is KRW 11,820,00 and the unpaid management fee is KRW 593,930 in total.
C. After the filing of the instant lawsuit, the Defendant’s fraud D paid KRW 6,00,000 to the Plaintiff around July 28, 2017, but later, the rent in arrears is KRW 29,550,000 as of February 15, 2018.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 2 to 4 and 7, purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, since the lease of this case was terminated due to the Defendant’s delinquency in rent for more than three years, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant store to the Plaintiff, and pay KRW 6,413,930 (i.e., the unpaid management expenses of KRW 11,820,930 (=6,000), and KRW 2,970,000 (value-added tax) from July 16, 2017 to the completion date of delivery of the instant store.
B. The Defendant alleged that “E is a vehicle that was paid to the Plaintiff on behalf of the Defendant while operating the instant store from May 2017 to the point of view.” However, there is no evidence to acknowledge this. Therefore, the above assertion is without merit.
3. If so, the plaintiff's claim is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.