beta
Text
1. The part against the defendant in the first instance judgment against the defendant shall be revoked.
2. The plaintiff falling under the above part of the revocation.
Reasons
1. On May 29, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a lease contract with the term of lease from May 30, 2017 to May 29, 202 with respect to the instant real estate owned by the Plaintiff to the Defendant: (a) the lease deposit amount of KRW 15,00,000; and (b) the rent of KRW 1,100,000 per month; (c) the Defendant paid the Plaintiff the rent by March 29, 2018; (d) the subsequent rent has not been paid; and (e) the fact that the Defendant currently occupied the instant real estate does not conflict between the parties.
2. The Defendant’s summary of the cause of the claim terminates a lease agreement on the instant real estate on the ground of overdue rent, and the Defendant’s claim against the Defendant for payment of rent or unjust enrichment calculated by applying the rate of KRW 1,100,000 per month from March 30, 2018 to June 29, 2018, and from June 30, 2018 to June 30, 2018.
3. Determination
A. 1) The defendant filed the lawsuit of this case in order to avoid liability for the plaintiff who failed to meet the obligation to use and make profits from the real estate of this case upon commencement of the auction procedure for the real estate of this case. Thus, the plaintiff's claim is an abuse of right. 2) If the plaintiff's exercise of right can be viewed as an abuse of right, the purpose of the exercise of right is to inflict damages on the other party and to inflict damages on the other party, and there is no benefit to the person who exercises the right, and the exercise of right should be objectively deemed as a violation of social order. Unless it falls under such a case, even if the other party's loss is significantly high than the profit that the exercise of right gains by the exercise of right, it cannot be viewed as an abuse
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Da73809, Feb. 25, 2010). 3) According to the evidence No. 8, the instant case on January 10, 2018, which was prior to the instant lawsuit.