beta
Text
1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 18,203,843 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from November 30, 2017 to the date of full payment.
Reasons
1. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. The Plaintiff is holding a claim based on the No. 278 of the No. 2017 No. 278 of the No. 2017 (hereinafter “instant No. notarial deed”).
C On March 16, 2015, with the Defendant, the lease contract was concluded between C and C by setting the lease deposit of KRW 20,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 2,500,000, and the lease term from May 1, 2015 to May 1, 2017 with respect to subparagraph 101 of the E building owned by C, and the Defendant is being used until now after delivery.
On May 22, 2017, the Plaintiff, based on the instant notarial deed, received a seizure and collection order (hereinafter “instant collection order”) from the Changwon District Court under the title of the said lease from August 2016 to the Defendant, under the title of the said lease agreement, under the title of the said lease. The original copy of the instant collection order was served on the Defendant, who is the garnishee, on May 25, 2017.
The details of rents paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff from March 2015 to November 2017 are as shown in the attached Table. The sum of rents unpaid until the said time is KRW 45,421,00 (i.e., the unpaid amount of KRW 13,400,000 in 2015 (i.e., the unpaid amount of KRW 13,771,000 in 2016).
The defendant paid 7,217,157 won on behalf of the plaintiff's building management expenses.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 5 evidence and Eul 2 through 5, 7, and 8 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings
B. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay the collection amount to the plaintiff according to the collection order of this case, barring any special circumstances, and the defendant asserts that the plaintiff is not obligated to pay the unpaid rent of KRW 45,421,00 (the defendant is not obligated to pay the value-added tax unless the plaintiff actually reported the value-added tax, but the defendant agreed to pay the value-added tax to the plaintiff who is the lessor at the time of entering into the lease contract of this case, the above argument cannot be accepted).