beta
Text
1. The Defendant shall deliver to the Plaintiff the real estate indicated in the attached list, and the said real estate shall be KRW 1,500,000 and from February 2, 2017.
Reasons
1. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. 1) On July 28, 2011, the Plaintiff: (a) on the real estate indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”); and (b) on the part of the Defendant.
2) The lease agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is concluded by setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 6 million, monthly rent of KRW 500,000,000, and the lease term from August 2, 2011 to August 1, 2013 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).
(2) While the instant lease contract was extended, the Defendant did not pay as the tea under the instant lease contract from October 2, 2016.
3) On February 20, 2017, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit that included the intent to terminate the instant lease agreement on the grounds that the Defendant did not pay a rent for at least three (3) years, and the instant warden reached the Defendant on March 10, 2017. (4) The Defendant occupied the instant real estate from the commencement date of the instant lease term to the date of its use and profit-making.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
B. According to the above facts of recognition, the instant lease agreement was terminated when the complaint of this case stating the Plaintiff’s expression of intent to terminate reaches the Defendant.
Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant real estate to the Plaintiff and pay the Plaintiff a sum of KRW 1,500,000 in total and the amount of unpaid rent from February 2, 2017 to February 1, 2017 to KRW 500,000 in arrears at the rate of KRW 50,000 per month from February 2, 2017 to the completion date of delivery of the said real estate.
(2) The plaintiff's request for extradition cannot be lawfully rejected on the ground that the lease deposit still remains under the lease contract of this case. However, the plaintiff's request for extradition cannot be lawfully rejected on the ground that the lease deposit remains).