beta
Text
1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.
A. Attached Form 1, 2, 3.
Reasons
1. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. On May 18, 2012, the Plaintiff leased the instant building to the Defendant by setting the deposit amount of KRW 20 million, KRW 2 million per month, and KRW 2 million from May 18, 2012 to 24 months from May 18, 2012 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).
A) Around that time, the Defendant delivered the instant building to the Defendant. (2) Around that time, the Defendant paid only KRW 500,000 out of the rent of KRW 2 million from August 18, 2014 to September 17, 2014, and delayed payment of that subsequent rent. If the Plaintiff did not pay the Defendant a arrears by December 15, 2014, until December 15, 2014, the Plaintiff will proceed with the request for the delivery of the instant building.
“The notice was sent by content-certified mail, and that notice was sent to the Defendant around that time, but the Defendant did not pay the Plaintiff the overdue charge by December 15, 2014.
B. According to the above facts of recognition, the instant lease agreement was lawfully terminated by the Plaintiff’s notice of termination on the ground of the Defendant’s delay. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff, and to pay the Plaintiff the rent of KRW 500,000 from August 26, 2014 to August 26, 2014, calculated at the rate of KRW 2 million per month from the date the delivery of the building is completed, as the Plaintiff seeks.
(1) On August 26, 2014, the part seeking the rent payment from August 24, 2014, other than August 26, 2014, is without merit).
A. The business hours of B, where the Defendant’s store was located, were 24 hours in its original place. However, since the end of 2013, the Plaintiff unilaterally reduced the business hours of the said marina from around the end of 2013 to the self-defensing, which may interfere with the business of the Defendant shop that run 24 hours, such as the Defendant store’s customers are unable to enter toilets, and the Plaintiff leased the Defendant’s store to the third party, and the Plaintiff’s delivery vehicle.