beta
Text
1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked;
2. The plaintiff's claim against the above cancellation portion is dismissed.
3.
Reasons
(2) As to May 12, 2014 and May 11, 2016, the term of lease was set at two years from May 12, 2014 to May 11, 2016 (hereinafter “instant lease”). Around that time, the Defendant received deposit of KRW 1,00,000 and delivered the said object to the Defendant.
B. From November 2014, the Plaintiff, who did not pay a tea, set up a door door to prevent the Defendant from having access to the instant object, and installed a glass angle on the wall.
【Recognition of Fact-finding】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap evidence 3, Eul evidence 3 and 4 (including virtual numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. On April 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant at the beginning of April 2014, setting the rent of KRW 200,000 per month for the instant object. Thus, the Defendant first is obligated to pay the Defendant rent of KRW 1,20,000 in total and KRW 200,000 per month from April to September 9, 2014, until the Defendant delivers the said object. (2) The Plaintiff entered into the instant lease agreement and delivered the instant object to the Defendant on May 12, 2014. As seen earlier, the Plaintiff controlled the entry into the instant object from around November 2014, and thus, the Defendant first is obligated to pay the Defendant rent of KRW 60,00 in total for six months from the Plaintiff offered for use and profit-making of the instant object (=60,000,000,000) x 6 months from the date of delivery of the said object.
* Although the Plaintiff erroneously stated the instant lease agreement in the amount of KRW 100,000 per month, the Plaintiff’s actual rent was KRW 200,000 per month, there is no evidence to acknowledge it. However, it cannot be said that the Defendant was liable to pay to the Plaintiff any rent after November 2014, that the Plaintiff could not use or benefit from the subject matter of this case due to the Plaintiff’s failure to use or benefit from the subject matter of this case. Thus, the Plaintiff’s above scope of recognition exceeds the above scope of recognition.