beta
Text
1. The defendant
(a) 7th floor of reinforced concrete structure studio B in Gyeonggi-do;
Reasons
1. Around December 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant and the Plaintiff on the part of the first underground floor among the above-ground buildings owned by the Plaintiff and the third third floor above the ground (hereinafter “instant leased real estate”) from December 10, 2013 to December 10, 2014, with the lease term of KRW 100 million from December 10, 2014, and KRW 30 million from the rent month (excluding value-added tax) (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”), and the lease agreement was extended by one year thereafter.
[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap subparagraph 2
2. According to the instant lease agreement, the instant lease agreement was terminated on December 10, 2015, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant leased real estate to the Plaintiff by restitution following the termination of the instant lease agreement. From December 11, 2015 to December 11, 2015, the day following the termination date of the instant lease agreement, to return unjust enrichment of KRW 33,000,000, which is the monthly rent for the use of the instant leased real estate, from the end date of delivery of the instant leased real estate.
3. The Defendant’s assertion and determination demanded the Plaintiff to renew the lease agreement six months prior to the termination of the instant lease agreement. As such, the instant lease agreement was extended on December 10, 2016, pursuant to Article 10 of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act.
On May 9, 2015, which was seven months prior to the termination of the lease, the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to reduce the monthly rent of KRW 20 million, and the evidence alone is insufficient to acknowledge the Defendant’s assertion. However, there is no evidence to deem that the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to renew the lease contract between six months and one month prior to the termination of the lease contract. Thus, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.
4. If so, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is so ordered as per Disposition.