beta
Text
1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.
(a) deliver the buildings listed in the separate sheet;
B. Attacheds 19,800,000 won and January 18, 2015.
Reasons
1. The assertion and judgment
A. 1) In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings as to the grounds for the claim Nos. 1 through 3, the Plaintiff shall be determined as to April 18, 2013, KRW 40 million, KRW 1100,000 per month, and the period of May 17, 2014, and as to the Defendant’s building listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”).
(2) The lease agreement of this case (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”)
(2) According to the above facts, the Defendant was obligated to deliver the instant real estate to the Plaintiff and return the unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent calculated by the ratio of KRW 19.8 million per month from August 18, 2013 to January 17, 2015, as the Plaintiff notified the termination of the instant lease agreement on February 9, 2015. 2) As such, the instant lease agreement was lawfully terminated on the ground of the Defendant’s delinquency in payment of rent, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant real estate to the Plaintiff, and return the unpaid rent to the Plaintiff the unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent calculated by the ratio of KRW 19.8 million per month from January 18, 2015 to the delivery date of the instant real estate.
B. As to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant asserts that the remainder after deducting the unpaid rent should be returned. However, according to the evidence evidence Nos. 4 and 5, the Defendant’s argument is without merit, the Lohbcom Co., Ltd. received an order of seizure and assignment of the claim for the refund of the deposit against the Plaintiff under the instant lease agreement as of March 5, 2014 by the Seoul Central District Court 2014TTN 6816, and the Plaintiff received an order of seizure and assignment of the entire claim at that time. Accordingly, the Defendant is no longer a right holder of the deposit under the instant lease agreement. Therefore, the Defendant’s argument is without merit.
2. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the ground that the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable.