beta
Text
1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.
(a) deliver the buildings listed in the annex sheet;
B. From April 4, 2015, the delivery of the above building.
Reasons
On September 27, 2014, the Plaintiff granted C the right of representation to conclude a lease agreement on the attached real estate (hereinafter “instant real estate”). On September 3, 2014, C on behalf of the Plaintiff, on the part of the Defendant, concluded a lease agreement with the Defendant on behalf of the Plaintiff, with the content that: (a) the instant real estate was leased deposit amounting to KRW 3,00,000; (b) monthly renting KRW 500,000; and (c) the lease period from September 4, 2014 to September 3, 2015; and (d) the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant on February 27, 2015, a certificate of content that “the instant lease agreement is terminated” is “from October 4, 2014 to December 27, 2015, on the ground that there is no dispute between the parties or that it was in arrears on two or more occasions between the parties involved; and (c) the purport of the entire pleadings can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the entries in subparagraphs 1 through 3.
Therefore, as the instant lease agreement was lawfully terminated, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant real estate to the Plaintiff, barring special circumstances, and to pay monthly rent or unjust enrichment calculated at the rate of KRW 500,000 per month from October 4, 2014 to the completion date of delivery of the instant real estate.
The defendant's defense is asserted to the effect that the obligation of the defendant to deliver the real estate of this case is in the simultaneous performance relationship with the plaintiff's obligation to return the deposit of this case 3,00,000 won. Thus, the defendant's defense to the effect that the defendant's obligation to deliver the real estate of this case has already been deducted and extinguished within the limit of the equal amount with the monthly rent of 3,00,000 won (=50,000 won x 6 months) corresponding to the portion of six months from October 4, 2014 to April 3, 2015, is obvious that the defendant's right to return the deposit of this case has already been deducted and extinguished within the limit of the equal amount. Thus
However, the above defense is justified in the purport that the defendant's obligation to pay monthly rent or the obligation to return unjust enrichment should be deducted within the extent equivalent to the above amount.
According to the conclusion, the defendant.