beta
Text
1. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff.
(a) deliver 74.88 square meters of geographical strata among the buildings listed in the attached list;
(b) on January 201;
Reasons
1. The following facts can be acknowledged in light of the purport of the whole pleadings in each of Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 3, Gap evidence No. 4-1, 2, and Gap evidence No. 6-1 to 3.
On March 26, 2010, the Plaintiff and the Defendants concluded a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with the Defendants, which stipulates that the Plaintiff shall lease deposit KRW 3 million, monthly rent of KRW 350,000,000 from March 30, 2010, and from March 30, 2012, the term of lease shall be from March 30, 2010 to March 30, 2012. The Plaintiff, a lessor, concluded a lease agreement stipulating that the Plaintiff shall lease the building by executing waterproof construction works of the instant building (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).
B. The Plaintiff received KRW 3 million from the Defendants, and performed waterproof construction on April 3, 2010, and leased the instant building to the Defendants. By October 31, 2010, the Defendants paid KRW 2.5 million to the Plaintiff by the Defendants until October 31, 2010, there is no dispute between the parties.
Since then, the rent has been paid only, and the rent has been continuously overdue until now.
C. Accordingly, on July 5, 2011, the Plaintiff notified the Defendants of the termination of the instant lease agreement on the grounds of the Defendants’ delay of rent, and the notice of such termination reached the Defendants on July 8, 2011.
The Defendants are occupying and using the instant building until now.
2. Determination as to the request for delivery of a building
A. According to the above facts, the instant lease agreement was duly terminated on July 8, 2011 by the Plaintiff’s declaration of termination on the grounds of the lessee’s delayed delay.
Therefore, barring special circumstances, the Defendants are obligated to deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff due to the termination of the lease.
B. (1) As to the defendants' defenses of rejection of rent due to the defendants' non-performance of repair obligation, the contract of this case was concluded by the defendants 1.