beta
Text
1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.
(a) deliver movable property listed in the separate sheet;
(b) KRW 2,640,000 and for this, May 2018.
Reasons
On the premise that the Plaintiff leased the movable in the separate sheet owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant movable”) to the Defendant, the Defendant asserted for the delivery, rent, and return of unjust enrichment equivalent to rent on the premise that the Plaintiff leased the movable in the separate sheet owned by the Plaintiff to the Defendant, the Defendant asserts to the effect that the lease contract cannot be recognized as a day before the Defendant’s representative director was
In full view of the following circumstances, which are acknowledged as having no partial dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2 through 8 by comprehensively taking into account the purport of the entire pleadings, i.e., the defendant’s husband of the former representative director: (a) preparing a confirmation document that corresponds to the plaintiff’s assertion; (b) the movables owned by the plaintiff are kept in the defendant’s workplace; and (c) the defendant paid the plaintiff KRW 80,000 as part of the rent of the instant movables on February 5, 2018, after the representative director was appointed; (b) it is reasonable to determine that the plaintiff leased the instant movables to the defendant on August 11, 2017, by setting the lease term as KRW 400,00 (value-added tax separate) until August 10, 2018, as alleged by the plaintiff.
In addition, the Plaintiff filed a claim for the payment of rent to the Defendant prior to the filing of the instant lawsuit, but the Defendant’s refusal to pay the rent is without dispute between the parties. According to the above facts of recognition, the lease agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant was lawfully terminated by the delivery of a copy of the instant complaint, which includes the Plaintiff’s declaration of termination due to the Defendant
Therefore, the defendant is obligated to deliver the movable property of this case to the plaintiff.
Meanwhile, on February 5, 2018, the Plaintiff received reimbursement of KRW 880,00 as part of the rent for the instant movable property from the Defendant, and the Defendant is either 2,640,000 that the Plaintiff did not pay to the Plaintiff (=8 months (from August 11, 2017 to April 10, 201) x 440,000 won (including value-added tax) - 880,000 won).