beta
Text
1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 79,515,00 and KRW 21,950,00 among them, from December 16, 2016 to the day of full payment.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On September 7, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant and Kimpo-si, with respect to the lease deposit of KRW 65 million, monthly rent of KRW 65 million (payment of interest at 25% per annum on delay), and from September 1, 2015 to March 31, 2018 (31 months).
(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).
B. Around that time, the Plaintiff delivered the instant real estate to the Defendant, and the Defendant paid KRW 65 million to the Plaintiff.
C. After that, the Defendant paid to the Plaintiff the difference for three months from September 2015 to November 2015.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1, purport of whole pleadings
2. Determination on a rent and a claim for return of unjust enrichment
A. As seen earlier, the Defendant’s failure to pay the rent for at least 12 months, which was based on the instant lease agreement. On November 24, 2016, the Plaintiff expressed his/her intent to terminate the instant lease upon the delivery of a preparatory document as of November 24, 2016, and the fact that the said preparatory document was served on the Defendant on December 5, 2016 is apparent in the record. As such, the instant lease agreement was terminated on December 5, 2016.
Therefore, barring special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the sum of the overdue rent of KRW 8,6950,000 [=7,150,000 won [the value added tax of KRW 6,50,000 (the rent of KRW 6.550,00), KRW 7,150,000] ¡¿ (the rent of KRW 6,50,000) x (the rent of KRW 5/31), and less than KRW 12 months];
In this regard, the defendant asserted that the plaintiff did not pay the difference to the wind that the plaintiff failed to properly perform the obligation to allow the tenant to use and benefit from the real estate of this case, but there is no evidence to acknowledge this, the defendant's above assertion is rejected.
B. The lessee’s determination on the claim for return of unjust enrichment is without any legal ground from the termination date of the lease contract.