beta
Text
1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.
(a) deliver each building listed in the separate sheet;
B. 21,376,300 won and December 11, 2018
Reasons
1. Indication of claim;
A. On May 21, 2018, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with the Defendant stipulating that each of the instant buildings shall be KRW 50,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 5,300,000 (in addition to value-added tax, payment from August 21, 2018) and the lease term of KRW 24 months from May 21, 2018 to May 21, 2020.
The defendant did not pay the rent at all.
Accordingly, around October 26, 2018, the Plaintiff terminated the instant lease contract on the grounds of the Defendant’s delinquency in rent.
B. Therefore, the Defendant delivers each of the instant buildings to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff is obligated to pay KRW 20,40,650 to the Plaintiff the amount equivalent to the rent and management fee incurred between August 21, 2018 and December 10, 2018, as well as the unpaid rent and unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent for the period from August 21, 2018 to December 10, 2018, the Plaintiff is clearly required to pay the Plaintiff the amount equivalent to the rent and management fee incurred between August 21, 2018 to October 2018. However, in full view of the contents of the written claim in the written complaint’s written claim, the purport of the Plaintiff’s claim is to seek that the Defendant is unpaid for the period from August 21, 2018 to December 10, 2018.
From December 11, 2018 to the delivery date of each building of this case, the government has a duty to pay the amount of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent calculated in proportion to KRW 5,830,000 per month, respectively.
2. Articles 208 (3) 1 and 257 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act of the applicable provisions of Acts;
3. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant should pay KRW 26,00,000, out of the deposit under the instant lease agreement.
However, as the contract of this case was terminated, the obligation of the defendant to pay the lease deposit was terminated, so this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.