beta
Text
1. The defendant
A. In the order of sequence 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1 of the annexed drawings among the C-ground buildings.
Reasons
Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the argument in Gap evidence No. 1, the plaintiff is the owner of the land C (hereinafter referred to as "the building in this case"), and on March 3, 2015, the plaintiff leased part 39 square meters in the ship connected with each of the above items in sequence 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1 among the above buildings to the defendant on March 3, 2015, by setting the deposit amount of KRW 5 million, monthly rent of KRW 400,000,000,000,000 from March 10, 2015 to March 10, 2017. The defendant did not pay deposit deposit of KRW 5 million and rent of KRW 2,40,000,000,000,000 from September 9, 2015, and the fact that the plaintiff continued to use the part of the complaint in this case containing his intention to cancel the lease contract on the ground that the defendant did not pay rent.
Therefore, the above lease agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant was lawfully terminated on June 1, 2016. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to deliver to the Plaintiff the part on board 39 square meters, which is linked in sequence to each of the items of the attached drawing Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1 among the instant building, which is the leased part.
In addition, as long as the Defendant continuously occupies and uses the leased portion, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent or the rent corresponding thereto, so the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the remainder of the money calculated by deducting the deposit amount from the amount calculated by deducting the deposit amount of KRW 5 million from the amount calculated from September 10, 2015 to the date the delivery of the said leased portion is completed.
The plaintiff, without considering the deposit amount of five million won, sought a return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the future rent on the basis of the filing date of the complaint, but the unpaid rent shall be automatically deducted from the deposit. Therefore, the part claimed in excess of the above recognized portion is without merit.
The plaintiff's claim shall be accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remainder shall be dismissed as it is without merit.