beta
Text
1. The defendant
(a) deliver the real estate listed in the separate sheet;
(b) KRW 51,200,000 and the same shall apply thereto.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is the owner of the real estate indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”).
B. On March 29, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to lease the instant real estate from May 15, 2016 to KRW 3,200,000, monthly rent of KRW 3,200,00 (prepaid on May 15, 2016) (hereinafter “instant lease contract”), and received the said deposit from the Defendant around that time.
C. The Defendant received delivery of the instant real estate and operated a pent and Kapbook under the name of “C”. From September 2016, the Defendant delayed payment of the instant real estate, and transferred D and E the instant pent and Kap business rights to D and E around August 2017.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 5 and 8, 10, 12 (including branch numbers if any) and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The instant lease agreement as to the cause of the claim terminated on May 15, 2017, and the Defendant, without any title, did not return the instant real estate to the Plaintiff, and the Defendant, without any title, voluntarily succeeded to D and E with the instant real estate’s business right, and is still deemed to possess the said real estate. Meanwhile, the Defendant’s claim for the refund of the lease deposit is deducted from the overdue rent, as seen in the Plaintiff’s claim for the refund of the lease deposit was entirely deducted from the overdue rent, and thus, the Defendant’s possession after the termination of the lease agreement is inevitable to be illegal possession.
(A) The Defendant is obligated to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages equivalent to the rent, irrespective of whether the Defendant had obtained a “material gain” while continuously running the instant real estate. Therefore, the Defendant is obliged to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages equivalent to the rent.
Therefore, the defendant delivered the real estate of this case to the plaintiff and on September 16, 2016, the following day of the period when the plaintiff was paid rent to the plaintiff.