beta
Text
1. The Defendant is from the Plaintiff’s KRW 6,200,000 to the full amount of KRW 48.6 square meters among the buildings indicated in the separate sheet from December 29, 2015.
Reasons
Facts of recognition
Comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions and arguments in Gap 1-3, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the defendant on December 6, 2014, stipulating that the whole size of 48.6 square meters of the 4th floor among the buildings listed in the separate sheet, owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant building”), lease deposit amounting to KRW 10 million, monthly rent of KRW 80,000 (repaid on October 29, 2014), and lease period from October 29, 2014 to October 28, 2015; the Plaintiff received lease deposit and delivered the instant building to the defendant around that time; the Plaintiff paid only the monthly rent to the defendant until January 28, 2015; the Plaintiff did not pay the monthly rent thereafter; and the Plaintiff terminated the lease agreement on September 30, 2015 on the ground that the lease agreement was terminated.
Judgment
According to the above facts, since the above lease contract was lawfully terminated due to the plaintiff's exercise of the right to terminate due to the delay of rent of the defendant, the defendant is obligated to deliver the building of this case to the plaintiff due to its restitution.
Meanwhile, the Plaintiff is a person who received five million won out of the unpaid monthly rent on December 28, 2015. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff unjust enrichment equivalent to the amount of KRW 8,80,000,000,000 for the unpaid monthly rent from January 29, 2015 to December 28, 2015 (11 months from January 29, 2015 to December 28, 2015) and the remainder of KRW 3.8 million (i.e., KRW 8,80,000 to KRW 5 million paid) and the amount of unjust enrichment from December 29, 2015 to December 29, 2015 to December 8, 2000 each month.
On the other hand, the defendant has a defense to the effect that the building of this case cannot be delivered until the security deposit is returned. Thus, the lessee's obligation to return the leased object and the lessor's obligation to return the lease deposit are concurrently performed. However, the lease deposit is secured by all the lessee's obligations arising from the lease relationship, such as the lease deposit and the damage liability arising from the loss or damage of the leased object.