beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable for KRW 103,669,449 and KRW 54,166,301 among them.
Reasons
1. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the facts of recognition are the same as the entry of the part of the "1. Basic Facts" in the judgment of the court of first instance, and therefore, they are quoted by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure
2. The plaintiff's ground for claim
A. The instant lease agreement was terminated on May 26, 2008 by the Plaintiff’s notice of termination.
The amount to be paid by the Defendants to the Plaintiff under the instant lease agreement is KRW 13,450,00 per month (i.e., the increased amount of KRW 3,00,000 due to the reduction of deposit for lease of KRW 2,50,000 for the original rent of KRW 3,000,000 for the bathing bath of KRW 2,50,000 for the depreciation cost of KRW 5,500,000 for the rent of KRW 5,50,000 and value-added tax for the building management expenses). The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 550,00,000 for the rent unpaid until May 26, 200, subtracting the amount of KRW 550,000 for the lease deposit of KRW 260,506,301 for the remainder, and the interest or delay damages thereon.
B. The Defendants are jointly and severally obligated to pay to the Plaintiff unjust enrichment amounting to the rent amounting to the Plaintiff from May 27, 2008 to August 31, 2009, which is the date of delivery of the bath of this case (=the cost of managing buildings and expenses equivalent to the rent amount (including value added tax) 252,43,138 won, and interest or delay damages thereon.
3. Judgment on the issue
A. On May 26, 2008, the Plaintiff asserted that the instant lease agreement was terminated by the Plaintiff’s notice of termination on May 26, 2008, and the Defendants asserted that the instant lease agreement was terminated by the Plaintiff’s notice of termination on May 26, 2008. The Defendants asserted that the instant lease agreement was terminated by subrogation by the sectional owners of the part B in the relevant lawsuit around May 16, 2006. The point at which the period of termination of the instant lease agreement is the issue at which the Defendants’ obligation to pay the rent is to determine the duration of the Defendants’ obligation to pay the rent. (ii) The lease termination due to nonperformance is agreed by one of the parties to allow the other party to use or benefit from the leased property.