beta
Text
1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.
(a) Of the seven floors of the building listed in the annex list, the Annex A, 2, 3, 4 and 1, respectively.
Reasons
In full view of the purport of the arguments in the statement Nos. 1 and 2, the Plaintiff, the owner of the building listed in the separate sheet, on October 22, 2018, entered into a commercial building lease agreement with the Defendant on the 7th floor of the building listed in the separate sheet, with respect to KRW 115.7 square meters on board (hereinafter “instant building”) connected each point of the 7th floor of the building listed in the separate sheet, including KRW 5,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 600,000 (50,000,000,000 for one year after the last day of each month, a special agreement was made in advance, and KRW 1,00,000,000), from October 30, 2018 to October 29, 2020, the Defendant did not pay only the deposit money for the commercial lease to KRW 300,000,000,000.
According to the above facts, the lease contract of this case was terminated by delivery to the defendant of the copy of the complaint of this case containing the plaintiff's expression of termination on the ground of delinquency in payment of more than three times of the defendant. Thus, the defendant is obligated to deliver the building of this case to the plaintiff and pay to the plaintiff the remaining 4,000,000 won after deducting the lease deposit of 5,00,000 won from the overdue rent of 9,000,000 until March 2020, and 60,000 won each month from April 1, 2020 to the delivery date of the building of this case.
As to this, the Defendant did not notify the Defendant of the violation of the Building Act that the Plaintiff was unable to operate a private teaching institute, and was actually leased, and paid rent from January 2019 in consideration of the interior period. Moreover, in the middle of 2019, the Defendant arbitrarily set up the keys to the instant building and prevented the Defendant from entering the building in order of 2019, and there is no evidence to support the Plaintiff’s claim or to recognize the reduction of rent. Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion is rejected.
Therefore, it is true.