beta
Text
1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.
A. Of the 1st floor of the building indicated in the attached list, 34 square meters of the “B” store indicated in the attached list.
Reasons
1. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire argument in the statement in subparagraph 2, the fact that the Plaintiff leased on January 10, 2014, 34 square meters of a partial store of “B” part of the 1st floor of the building indicated in the attached list (hereinafter “instant store”) to the Defendant on the following grounds: (a) KRW 5 million of the lease deposit; (b) KRW 5 million of the rent monthly; and (c) from January 10, 2014 to January 9, 2016, there is no dispute between the parties.
Therefore, the lease contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant terminated on January 9, 2016, and the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant store to the Plaintiff.
B. The Defendant is obligated to return to the Plaintiff the unjust enrichment from the possession and use of the above store from the date of termination of the lease contract to the date of the delivery of the above store, and the unjust enrichment from the possession and use of the ordinary real estate is the amount equivalent
The facts that the monthly rent of the instant store was KRW 500,000 per month from January 10, 2014 to January 9, 2016 are as seen earlier, and it can be ratified that this would be the same even thereafter. Thus, the Defendant is obligated to return to the Plaintiff unjust enrichment calculated by the ratio of KRW 500,000 per month from January 10, 2016 to the date the delivery of the instant store is completed.
(A) The Plaintiff did not state the date of commencing the claim for monetary payment in the claim, but the date of commencing January 10, 2016, which was after the expiration of lease in light of the content of the cause of the claim seeking return of unjust enrichment. 2. The Defendant’s claim as to the Defendant’s claim is asserted that the Defendant agreed to operate the instant store free of charge until the building is removed, taking into account the fact that fire at the next shop was caused by fire that occurred in the instant store and the restoration work was performed at the Defendant’s expense. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge such agreement, and the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.
3. Conclusion.