beta
Text
1. The defendant against the plaintiff A,
(a) Attached Map 1, 2, 3.2 among the underground floors of the real estate listed in the separate sheet.
Reasons
1. The following facts of Plaintiff A’s claim may be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the entries in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6:
Plaintiff
A on June 2, 2012, with respect to the real estate stated in paragraph (1) of this Article, paid the lease deposit of KRW 10,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 450,000 on the 30th day of each month, and leased it to the Defendant after concluding a lease contract with the Defendant to pay KRW 10,000 per month as the cost of cleaning stairs.
B. The Defendant paid the rent and the cost of cleaning the stairs until December 30, 2014, and did not pay it thereafter, and the Defendant delays KRW 3,220,000 for seven months until July 30, 2015.
C. On September 12, 2015, the copy of the instant complaint seeking the termination of the lease agreement on the grounds of the Defendant’s delinquency in rent more than twice was served on the Defendant.
According to the above facts, the lease contract of this case was terminated, and the defendant is obligated to deliver the real estate to the plaintiff, to pay the 3,220,000 won in arrears, and to pay the money calculated by the rate of 460,000 won in each month from August 1, 2015 to the completion date of delivery of real estate.
2. Plaintiff B’s claim was determined as of September 17, 2013 and lent KRW 5,000,000 as of September 17, 2012.
According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff B the amount of KRW 5,00,000 and the amount calculated at the rate of 5% per annum from September 18, 2013 to September 12, 2015, which is the delivery date of the copy of the complaint in this case, and 15% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.
In this regard, the defendant asserts that the remaining lease deposit and the loan obligation are set off, but the parties to the claim to return the lease deposit are plaintiffs A and the defendant, and the parties to the loan obligation are plaintiffs B and the defendant, so they cannot claim a set-off based on the mutual agreement between the parties.
3. Thus, the plaintiffs' claims are with merit.