beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the subsequent order of payment shall be revoked.
Reasons
1. On June 23, 2014, the Plaintiff: (a) leased the entire first floor of the Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Ground Building C (hereinafter “instant building”); (b) KRW 30,000,000 for the lease deposit; (c) KRW 1,650,00 for the rent month; (d) monthly management fee of KRW 110,000 for the monthly rent; and (e) from July 31, 2014 to July 30, 2015; and (c) around that time, the Plaintiff paid KRW 30,00,000 for the lease deposit to the Defendant.
(hereinafter “instant lease agreement.” The Plaintiff paid the monthly rent to May 2015 (from May 1, 2015 to May 31, 2015) and paid the monthly rent to July 18, 2015.
Accordingly, on September 15, 2015, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking reimbursement of overdue rent and unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent (hereinafter “instant extradition lawsuit”) with the Seoul Eastern District Court Decision 2015da125266, Seoul Eastern District Court (hereinafter “Seoul East District Court Decision”), and the judgment accepting all the Defendant’s claims against the Plaintiff was rendered on December 29, 2015, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on December 29, 2015.
(On the other hand, the Plaintiff filed a subsequent appeal against the above judgment on March 2, 2016, but withdrawn the appeal on October 11, 2016). The Plaintiff shall deliver the instant building to the Defendant, and shall pay the amount calculated by the rate of 15% per annum from December 22, 2015 to the date of complete payment, and shall pay the money calculated by the rate of 1,760,000 won per month from October 1, 2015 to the date of complete delivery of the said building.
On February 2, 2016, the Defendant conducted a compulsory execution to deliver the instant building on the basis of the foregoing judgment, and received dividends from the Defendant on June 2, 2016 in the auction procedure conducted for corporeal movables kept in custody during the said execution procedure.
However, the plaintiff is the defendant of this case.