beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 22,00,000 as well as annual 5% from June 13, 2015 to July 10, 2015 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On January 12, 2014, the Plaintiff leased KRW 102 of the first floor among the buildings located in Daegu Northern-gu Seoul (hereinafter “instant housing”) from the Defendant (hereinafter “instant housing”) to KRW 22 million, the term of lease from February 8, 2014 to February 7, 2016, and paid KRW 222 million to the Defendant.
B. From June 2014, around the floor, walls, and welves around the instant house, and fungs and fungs were seriously generated. The Plaintiff demanded the Defendant to remove fungs and repair fungs, but the Defendant did not repair fungs.
C. On July 10, 2014, July 21, 2014, July 21, 2014, and July 30, 2014, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a certificate of the termination of the instant lease on the grounds of nonperformance of the repair obligation. However, each of the above content certification was returned to the Defendant as a closed door absence, and the Plaintiff was a director of the instant housing on August 2, 2014.
The Plaintiff attempted to deliver the key to the instant house to the Defendant on June 12, 2015 (on June 12, 2015), but rejected the receipt by the Defendant.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 3 (including provisional number), substantial facts to the court, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The lessor is obligated to maintain the conditions necessary for the use and profit of the instant lease during the term of the contract. The fact that the said lessor severely incurred damp and fung in the instant house, and the Defendant did not repair it. The fact that the duplicate of the instant complaint stating the intent to terminate the instant lease contract on October 24, 2014, was delivered to the Defendant on the ground that it was clearly recorded in the record. Thus, the instant lease agreement was lawfully terminated.
I would like to say.
Therefore, the defendant is from June 13, 2015, which is the day following the date of the second pleading, on which the plaintiff provided performance for the delivery of the house in this case to the plaintiff.