beta
Text
1. The defendant is against the plaintiffs:
A. From 10,00,000 to 10,000 won from the Plaintiffs, buildings listed in the separate sheet from November 22, 2015.
Reasons
Facts of recognition
A. On September 16, 2015, the Plaintiffs entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with the Defendant and the Defendant, setting the lease deposit of KRW 10 million, KRW 550,000 per month, and the lease term from September 22, 2015 to September 22, 2017. Paragraph (2) of the instant lease agreement (hereinafter “instant special agreement terms”) provides that “The lease agreement terms of the instant lease agreement are set forth in advance and subject to the measures taken by the lessor at the time of the second default.”
B. On September 22, 2015, the Plaintiffs delivered the instant apartment to the Defendant, and the Defendant paid the Plaintiffs totaling KRW 10 million as the lease deposit for the instant lease agreement between September 19, 2015 and September 26, 2015.
C. However, the Defendant did not pay the Plaintiffs the rent after November 22, 2015, and the Plaintiffs were in arrears with the Defendant around December 16, 2015, and thus, the Defendant did not pay the amount of KRW 110,000,000,000 as the monthly rent and the monthly rent until December 22, 2015.
However, since November 22, 2015, the Defendant did not pay the Plaintiffs a rent to the present time, and is occupying and using the instant apartment as of the date of closing argument in the instant case.
[Grounds for recognition] Fact-finding, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, and the purport of the entire argument as to the claim for the delivery of the apartment of this case is determined. According to the above fact-finding, it is reasonable to interpret the provision on the right of termination to the effect that the plaintiffs may terminate the lease contract of this case if the defendant fails to pay the rent of two times. Since the defendant did not pay the rent of two times or more after November 22, 2015, the lease of this case was lawfully terminated on December 22, 2015 by the plaintiffs' declaration of termination as of December 16, 2015.
Therefore, it is different.