beta
Text
1. The Defendant shall deliver to the Plaintiff the real estate indicated in the attached list, and the Plaintiff shall be as from September 20, 2016, including KRW 10,614,90.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On August 20, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with the Defendant, setting a deposit of KRW 1 million, monthly rent of KRW 1,100,000 (including value-added tax, and payment on August 21, 2015) as the lease period from August 20, 2015 to August 20, 2016.
B. Around that time, the Defendant paid KRW 10,00,000 to the Plaintiff. From August 21, 2016, the Defendant began to possess and use the instant heading. As of September 19, 2016, the Plaintiff did not pay KRW 1,814,90 in total of the management fees and the arrears from November 2015 to January 2016, and from May 2016 to September 2016, the Plaintiff did not pay KRW 8,800,000 in total of the rental fees and the arrears from June 2016 to September 2016.
C. Accordingly, from August 2, 2016 to October 5, 2016, the Plaintiff terminated the instant lease agreement to the Defendant on the grounds of delinquency in the payment of rent, etc. on several occasions, and thus, the Plaintiff demanded the Defendant to return the instant house to the original state, and to pay the rent and management fee in arrears.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without a partial dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Gap evidence No. 5-1, 2, and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination:
A. According to the above facts, the instant lease agreement was lawfully terminated on the grounds of delinquency in rent at least two occasions, barring any special circumstance, and the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant family room to the Plaintiff and pay the Plaintiff the overdue rent, management fee, etc., and the unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent from September 20, 2016 to the date of delivery.
B. As to the defendant's defense, etc. 1, the defendant is excessive management expenses, and the plaintiff suffered damage to the defense room of this case, and thus there is no obligation to respond to the plaintiff's claim. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge this, and in particular, the evidence of evidence Nos. 2, 7, and 8 is examined in relation to the power failure.