beta
Text
1. The defendant
A. Of the land size of 750 square meters in one Eup/Myeon, the attached appraisal shall be in order of each point of 1,2,3,4,5,6, and 1.
Reasons
1. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the evidence presented by the Plaintiff’s argument, the following facts are acknowledged: (a) around December 2015, the Plaintiff leased the buildings indicated in the Disposition 1-A (hereinafter “instant buildings”) to the Defendant without fixing the period of KRW 3 million per month; (b) the Defendant installed the deaf-gu as indicated in the Disposition 1-B; (c) the Defendant did not pay the Plaintiff the rent from October 25, 2015; and (d) the Plaintiff’s termination of the lease agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on November 30, 2015, including “the lease agreement is terminated on the grounds of the Defendant’s failure to pay the rent.”
According to the above facts, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff, collect the deaf-gu as stated in subparagraph 1(b) of the order from October 25, 2015 to December 3, 2015, and pay the rent of KRW 3.9 million [The rent of KRW 3 million from October 25 to November 24, 2015 (= KRW 3.9 million from November 25 to December 24, 2015 + KRW 9 million from November 25 to December 3, 2015].
B. However, the dismissed portion, however, where a lessee continued to possess a leased building after the termination of the lease agreement, if he/she did not obtain any profit by failing to use the leased building or make profits from the leased building according to its original purpose, the obligation to return unjust enrichment therefrom is not established, and this is also the case where the lessee
(Supreme Court Decision 2004Reda818 Decided October 12, 2006). The Defendant failed to properly operate the school after the Plaintiff’s passage and work interfered with around October 2015.
In light of the fact that the Plaintiff alleged to the purport, the evidence alone submitted by the Plaintiff is insufficient to recognize the fact that the Defendant used or benefited from the instant building for its original purpose after the termination of the lease agreement, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
Therefore, the lease contract is.