beta
Text
1. The defendant shall pay back to the plaintiff 720 kg of the white light (raw light).
If it is impossible to enforce enforcement against the above00s.
Reasons
1. Factual basis
A. The Plaintiff leased a deposit of KRW 50,000,000,000,000 per annum 100 square meters per annum (hereinafter “instant land”) to the Defendant in Suwon-si, Suwon-si, Suwon-si, which was owned by the Plaintiff, as follows: (a) KRW 500,00,000; (b) KRW 80,000,000 per annum 10,000; (c) KRW 80,000 per annum 10,000; (d) KRW 80,000 per annum 1,00,000; (e)
B. From September 2017, the Plaintiff knew the Defendant that he/she had no intent to renew the lease contract, and the Defendant removed and removed the facilities installed on the instant land around March 18, 2018.
[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1 through 4 (including virtual numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. The Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the rent for the period from January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017 with respect to the instant land.
Inasmuch as the Plaintiff and the Defendant appears to have determined that the instant land was a tea in light of the size of 900 square meters, [the area of the land was entered in the lease agreement as 2,973 square meters, which constitutes 89.325 square meters (2,973 x 0.3025)] The rent for the said period is 720 kg of white and white light goods.
(80km/100 square x 9). (b)
In the event that compulsory execution against the defendant is impossible, the defendant is liable to pay to the plaintiff money equivalent to the above 00 US market price.
According to the purport of Gap evidence and all the arguments, the market price of 20 km goods can be seen as 56,90 won. Thus, the market price of 1 km is 2,845 won (56,900 won/20 km).
C. The Plaintiff sought an amount of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent for the pertinent land from January 1, 2018 to March 18, 2018 when the Defendant delivered the said land. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant used the instant land for the purpose stipulated in the lease agreement, and thus, this part of the allegation is rejected.
3. The plaintiff's claim is accepted within the above scope, and the remaining claims are dismissed.