beta
Text
1. The defendant
(a)each land listed in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the attached list and each building listed in paragraph 3 of the same list;
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On April 4, 2013, the Plaintiff leased the land listed in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the attached Table Nos. 1 (hereinafter “each land of this case”) and the building listed in paragraph 3 of the same Table (hereinafter “the building of this case”) owned by the Plaintiff to the Defendant with the lease deposit of KRW 100,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 4,000, and the lease period of KRW 4,000, and April 30, 2013 as from April 30, 2013 to April 30, 2018, but instead reduced the lease deposit amount of KRW 60,00,000 on July 3, 2014 to KRW 4,40,000, monthly rent of KRW 25,000 (payment of value-added tax as separate, monthly rent of KRW 25,00 (payment of value-added tax).
(hereinafter referred to as “instant lease agreement”). B.
After being handed over each of the instant lands and buildings in accordance with the aforementioned lease agreement, the Defendant delayed to pay the rent of KRW 26,400,000 (the aggregate of KRW 4,400,000 x 6 months x 7,280,000 (the amount excluding the value-added tax) by January, 2016 and February until March 24, 2016, including the aggregate of KRW 27,280,000 (=440,000 x 2 months) and KRW 880,000 (26,40,000 + 880,000), and received repayment from the Defendant on February 11, 2016.
[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Entry of Evidence A Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. As seen earlier, the Defendant’s determination on the cause of the claim did not pay the rent of KRW 27,280,000 in total until March 24, 2016 and did not pay the rent of KRW 27,280,000. On that ground, the Plaintiff expressed his/her intent to terminate the instant lease by serving a duplicate of the preparatory document as of February 25, 2016, and the Plaintiff expressed that the content certification (Evidence A No. 3) of October 9, 2015 was dispatched as a declaration of demand for rent.
Since the record clearly shows, the instant lease agreement was lawfully terminated on February 29, 2016, when a duplicate of the above preparation document was served on the Defendant.
Therefore, the defendant is entitled to each of the land and buildings of this case, which are leased objects according to the termination of the lease contract of this case.