beta
Text
1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.
(a) deliver the real estate listed in the separate sheet;
(b)payment of KRW 5,000,000;
C. Newly Inserted by Presidential Decree No. 2690, May 2015
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On February 20, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant on the attached list owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant building”) with respect to the lease deposit of KRW 3,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 600,000, and the lease period of KRW 200,000, from February 22, 2013 to April 21, 2013 (2 months), and from February 22, 2013 to April 21, 2013, the Plaintiff leased the instant building to the Defendant.
B. On October 2014, the Defendant delayed payment of KRW 200,000 and from November 2014. On July 3, 2015, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the termination of the instant lease on the ground that the instant lease was overdue at least twice.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5, purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. According to the above fact-finding, the instant lease contract was terminated on July 3, 2015 by the Defendant’s dismissal of the rent in arrears at least twice.
Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff, and pay to the Plaintiff unjust enrichment calculated by applying the rate of KRW 5,00,000 per month from October 3, 2014 to July 3, 2015 (=200,000 won (=60,000 won x 8 months)) and the rate of KRW 600,00 per month from July 3, 2015 to the time of delivery of the instant building.
B. As to this, the Defendant asserted that, at the time of the instant lease agreement, the Plaintiff did not perform the repair agreement, such as the main phishing and air conditioners of the instant building, thereby causing damage to the Defendant. Thus, the Defendant did not pay the rent until the settlement thereof was made, and thus, the Defendant did not delay the rent.
On the other hand, there is no evidence to acknowledge the above facts of the defendant's assertion, and even if the above facts of assertion are recognized, such circumstance alone does not extinguish the defendant's obligation to pay rent.