beta
Text
1. The Defendant amounting to KRW 30 million to the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s annual rate of 5% from June 16, 2013 to June 9, 2014.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. From May 2012, the Plaintiff: (a) leased from the Defendant, the second floor Nos. 201, 202, 203, 204, 202, and 301, 302, and 303 of the building located in Jinju-si B from the Defendant during the period from May 201 to January 31, 201; (b) KRW 35 million per unit (5 million per unit); and (c) KRW 2.8 million per month during the period from May 2012 to January 31, 2013.
(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). B.
According to the conclusion of the instant lease agreement, the Plaintiff paid the Defendant deposit amounting to KRW 35 million, and paid monthly rent, around June 15, 2013, agreed on the remainder of the leased object except subparagraph 303 of the said lease agreement with the Defendant, and accordingly, delivered the remainder of the leased object to the Defendant except subparagraph 303.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination:
A. According to the facts acknowledged before the judgment on the cause of the claim, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount equivalent to the lease contract terminated between KRW 35 million and KRW 30 million (i.e., the remaining heading room excluding subparagraph 303 x 5 million) and damages for delay at each rate of 20% per annum under the Civil Act from June 16, 2013 to June 9, 2014, which is clear that the Defendant’s delivery of the object of lease from the Plaintiff, excluding subparagraph 303, was the date on which the duplicate of the complaint in this case was delivered to the Defendant.
B. As to the Defendant’s assertion and judgment, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff did not pay the monthly rent to the Defendant from June 16, 2013 to June, 2013, and that the electricity and gas rent did not have been paid. The Defendant asserted the Plaintiff’s assertion.
However, according to the above evidence, the lease contract of this case is concluded.