beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 64,331,840 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from April 21, 2016 to March 23, 2017, and the following.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On May 4, 2012, the Plaintiff leased a factory owned by the Plaintiff to the Defendant (hereinafter “instant factory”) with a deposit of KRW 50 million, monthly rent of KRW 5.5 million (excluding value-added tax), the contract period from June 1, 2012 to May 31, 2014 (hereinafter “instant lease”).
After that, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to extend the term of the instant lease by May 31, 2015.
B. However, the Defendant did not pay the rent from October 2014, but paid only the rent of KRW 3 million on June 10, 2015, and KRW 1450,000 on July 17, 2015.
C. The Plaintiff terminated the instant lease contract on the grounds of the rent delay, and the Defendant left the factory of this case on February 15, 2016.
Meanwhile, the Plaintiff paid 2,933,140 won to the Defendant’s unpaid electricity charges.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Gap evidence 11-1 to 3, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination as to the cause of action
A. (1) According to the above basic facts, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 45,375,00,00 calculated by deducting the Defendant’s security deposit refund claim amounting to KRW 50,00 from the Defendant’s security deposit refund claim amounting to KRW 95,375,00 [= KRW 99,825,00 [= KRW 6,50,000 ( KRW 5,550,000 KRW 5,000), KRW 16,50]; KRW 45,375,000; and the Defendant’s unpaid electricity charges amounting to KRW 2,93,140, and delay damages therefrom paid by the Plaintiff].
(2) As to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant asserted that the instant lease between the Plaintiff and the Defendant terminated on May 2015, and thereafter, the instant lease contract was concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, Inc., and the Defendant, and that there was no obligation to pay unjust enrichment equivalent to rent or rent after June 2015. However, each of the items of evidence Nos. 1, 6, and 10 are sufficient to recognize the Defendant’s assertion.