beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On March 17, 2014, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with D, the owner of the instant building at the time, on the two-story housing buildings of Ulsan-gu C brick structure, Ulsan-gu, Seoul-do (hereinafter “instant building”), stating that the lease deposit amount of KRW 2,00,000,000, and the lease term of KRW 60 months from April 15, 2014, and KRW 1,000,000,000 for the rent of KRW 78.0,000 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).
B. As to the instant building, registration of ownership preservation was completed on October 19, 198 in the future as of June 18, 2015, the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the future as of June 18, 2015, and as of March 18, 2016, the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the Plaintiff and F, respectively.
[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence No. 1-2, Evidence No. 1-2, Evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) from April 2016 to April 2016, the Defendant did not pay the monthly rent stipulated in the instant lease agreement, and E, a former owner, notified the Defendant of the termination of the instant lease agreement. Moreover, the Plaintiff also notified the Defendant of the termination of the instant lease agreement on the ground of a rent-to-rent. Therefore, the Defendant shall deliver the instant leased portion to the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff unjust enrichment equivalent to the monthly rent or rent after July 2016. 2) The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff succeeded to the lessor’s status of the instant lease agreement, and the Defendant did not pay a partial rent in the process of the ownership transfer of the instant building. However, the Plaintiff deposited the instant lease agreement against the Plaintiff on account of deposit against the Plaintiff as stipulated in the instant lease agreement. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s allegation on the termination of the instant lease is not permissible.
B. We examine the legality of the grounds for termination on the grounds of the first rent delay, and first notify the Defendant of the termination of the instant lease agreement on the grounds of the rent delay.