beta
Text
1. The Defendant shall deliver from the Plaintiff KRW 60,000,000 to the Plaintiff the 56m2 per annum among the buildings listed in the separate sheet from January 7, 2016.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On March 22, 2011, the Plaintiff, the owner of the building indicated in the attached list, concluded a lease agreement with the Defendant, which stipulates that the lease deposit amount of KRW 50,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 3,200,000, and the lease term of KRW 60,000 from April 7, 201 to April 6, 2013, the lease deposit amount of KRW 60,000, monthly rent of KRW 3,90,000 (excluding value-added tax), monthly rent of KRW 3,00,00 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) was concluded again on April 7, 2013, when the said lease term expires.
B. After concluding the aforementioned lease agreement on March 22, 2011, the Defendant operated both sides of the instant building from April 7, 2011 to April 7, 2011, and paid all the Plaintiff money equivalent to the monthly rent up to January 6, 2016, corresponding to the portion of the payment before the closing date of the instant pleadings.
[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings
2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim
A. The Plaintiff asserted that the instant lease agreement has expired on April 6, 2015, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff at the same time with the remainder of money calculated by deducting the amount of money calculated at the rate of KRW 4,290,00 per month from April 7, 2015 to the delivery of the instant building from the expiration date of the lease deposit of KRW 60,000 from the lease deposit of the instant lease agreement to the return of the instant building from April 7, 2015.
B. According to the above facts of recognition, the instant lease contract was terminated on April 6, 2015.
In addition, since the defendant uses and benefits from the building of this case even after the termination of the lease contract of this case, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff the unjust enrichment equivalent to the monthly rent, so the defendant is from the plaintiff.