beta
Text
1. The Defendant:
(a) Indication of the attached Form No. 1, 2, 3, of the D-dong two floors of the building indicated in the attached Form No. 1.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On March 12, 2018, the Plaintiff made a contract with the Defendant to pay KRW 10,000 (50,000,000,000,000, which is one’s own property (hereinafter “instant real property”) as indicated in Paragraph (1) of the Disposition, which is one’s own possession, (hereinafter “instant real property”), and agreed to pay KRW 5,00,000,00 for the first remainder until March 14, 2018, and to pay KRW 5,00,00,00 for the second remainder until September 14, 2018 (excluding value-added tax), monthly rent 1,50,000 (excluding value-added tax), and the lease period ranging from March 14, 2018 to the Defendant for the immediate cancellation of the lease contract (hereinafter “the instant real property”).
B. From July 14, 2018 to September 17, 2018, the Plaintiff did not receive monthly rent for at least three months, and on August 20, 2018, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a certificate indicating the purport of cancelling the instant lease agreement, stating that “if the delayed rent is not paid in full by September 14, 2018, the overdue rent for at least two months was overdue, the Plaintiff would be able to file a lawsuit against the Defendant.” However, the Plaintiff did not receive the overdue rent or the second balance, etc.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap 1 through 9, purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the judgment and the facts of the above recognition, since the lease contract of this case was terminated, the defendant is obligated to deliver the real estate of this case to the plaintiff, and the defendant is obligated to pay, as requested by the plaintiff, the unpaid rent or the amount of unjust enrichment equivalent to the unpaid rent, calculated at the rate of KRW 1,650,000 (including value-added tax) from September 17, 2018 to the completion date of delivery of the real estate of this case. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case of this case is justified and it is so