beta
Text
1. Defendant C:
A. From 50,00,000 won to 50,000 won, real estate listed in the separate sheet from September 3, 2015.
Reasons
1. Summary of arguments, such as parties;
A. The Plaintiff is the owner of the real estate listed in the [Attachment] List (hereinafter “instant commercial building”), and around June 2015, the Plaintiff leased the said commercial building to Defendant C.
Defendant C delayed monthly rent at least twice, and even if not, it is difficult to maintain a lease contract under the good faith principle, and thus, the above lease contract is terminated.
Meanwhile, Defendant D had the Plaintiff and Defendant C use the instant commercial building on the premise that the lease agreement is valid, but no longer has the right to use and benefit from the commercial building as long as the said lease agreement was terminated.
Although it is unclear that the cause of the plaintiff's claim against the defendant D is not clear, it is possible to do so.
Therefore, the Plaintiff, ① the Defendant, and ② the Defendant, from September 3, 2015 to November 2, 2015, are obligated to pay the rent of KRW 5,400,000, as delayed from November 2, 2015, as well as damages for delay, and the rent of KRW 2,70,000 per month from November 3, 2015 to the completion date of the above commercial delivery.
B. The parties who concluded a lease agreement with the Plaintiff’s Intervenor are Defendant D, and the Plaintiff’s Intervenor seized and collected the claim for return of the lease deposit against the Plaintiff by Defendant D, and the Plaintiff’s Intervenor eventually paid the remainder of the lease deposit to the Plaintiff’s Intervenor, and should not be paid to the Defendant C.
C. Since Defendant C leased the instant commercial building from the Plaintiff, Defendant C was obligated to deliver the instant commercial building to the Plaintiff at the same time as receiving the remainder of the lease deposit after deducting the rent, etc. delayed from the Plaintiff.
2. First of all, we examine who tenant is the tenant of the commercial building in this case.
A Evidence Nos. 1 and 1 and 2 are written, and the fact-finding inquiry results of this court's Goyang-gu office about Soyang-gu office, and this court's Goyang-gu office's Goyang-gu office's Goyang-gu office.