beta
Text
1. The Defendant: 5% per annum from January 22, 2015 to February 3, 2016; and 4, February 2, 2016 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is the owner of the building Jin-si B (hereinafter “instant building”). The Defendant did not pay the monthly rent of KRW 1.4 million (No. 1.1 million, KRW 3.4 million, KRW 38 million), monthly management expenses of KRW 1.28 million, during the period from November 2012 to November 201, 2014.
Therefore, the defendant should pay to the plaintiff 38 million won and damages for delay.
B. Even based on the respective statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7 submitted by the plaintiff, it is insufficient to recognize that the defendant occupied and used 204 and 314 of the instant building until November 201, 2014, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.
However, inasmuch as the Defendant is a person who did not pay rent of KRW 10,173,33 from October 18, 2012 to May 25, 2013, the Defendant is entitled to accept the Plaintiff’s claim regarding this scope.
The plaintiff also claims the management expenses that the defendant did not pay, but the management expenses incurred after May 25, 2013 did not prove the defendant's possession and use, and according to the evidence No. 5, the plaintiff can only recognize the fact that the plaintiff acquired only the unpaid rent claim from C, and it is difficult to recognize the fact that the plaintiff acquired the unpaid rent claim, the part concerning the claim for the management expenses is rejected
2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion
A. On the argument that the security deposit should be deducted, the defendant asserts that the unpaid rent should be deducted in preference to the security deposit, since he paid the security deposit of 3.5 million won when leasing the building of this case.
However, the evidence submitted by the defendant alone is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff is liable to pay the deposit amount of KRW 35 million to the defendant, and there is no other evidence that can be recognized otherwise.
[The Supreme Court of Daejeon District Court Decision 2014Na107855 decided September 18, 2015 (principal suit) and 107862 (Counterclaim) decided to the same effect, and the above judgment was finalized on October 13, 2015).