beta
Text
1. The defendant is against the plaintiffs:
(a) deliver the real estate listed in the Schedule;
B. From September 26, 2019, the above-mentioned A
(b).
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On June 4, 2015, the Plaintiffs: (a) leased real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant building”) to the Defendant with the lease deposit of KRW 10 million; (b) KRW 750,000 per month; (c) KRW 15,00 per month; and (d) KRW 15,00 per month; and (c) monthly water use fees of KRW 15,00 per month; and (d) KRW 15,00 per month; and (e) KRW 830,00 per month; (e) KRW 7,50,00 per month; (e) KRW 15,00 per month; and (e) KRW 15,00 per year; and (e) leased the instant building from June 24, 2015 to June 23, 2016 (hereinafter “instant lease”); and (e) Article 4 of the said lease agreement provides that the lessor may terminate the said lease agreement if the lessee is a lessee’s rent for three years.
B. Around the above time, the Defendant paid the lease deposit to the Plaintiffs, and received delivery of the building of this case and used it for the use of the music recording room.
After that, although the instant lease contract has been renewed continuously, the Defendant paid only rent, etc. until September 23, 2018, and did not pay it thereafter.
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, each entry of Gap's 1 through 3 (including virtual number) and the purport of whole pleading
2. Determination as to the cause of action
A. According to the facts of the recognition of the above request for extradition, the Plaintiffs acquired the right to terminate the contract on the grounds of the Defendant’s delayed delay, and the lease contract of this case was lawfully terminated upon delivery to the Defendant on March 15, 2019 of a duplicate of the complaint of this case containing the Plaintiffs’ declaration of termination.
Therefore, barring special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant building to the Plaintiffs as the return of the leased object.
Accordingly, the defendant's simultaneous performance defense with the return of the above lease deposit. Therefore, in the lease contract, the return of the leased object and the return of the lease deposit are in the simultaneous performance relationship as argued by the defendant. However, according to the above recognition, the defendant did not pay rent from September 24, 2018 and occupied the building in this case.