beta
Text
1.The judgment of the first instance, including any claims added at the trial, shall be modified as follows:
The defendant.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On December 7, 2006, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with C on setting the rent of KRW 200,000 per month (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) and received the instant real estate from C around that time.
B. On November 10, 2016, the Plaintiff purchased the instant real estate from C and completed the registration of ownership transfer on December 30, 2016, and succeeded to the status of a lessor under the instant lease agreement.
C. There is no fact that the Defendant paid rent to the Plaintiff from the time the Plaintiff succeeded to the lessor status under the instant lease agreement to the time of closing argument.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 2 (including a provisional number) and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant did not pay two or more times the rent under the instant lease agreement, and on this ground, it is evident in the record that the preparatory document dated October 19, 2017, delivered to the Defendant on October 23, 2017, to the effect that the instant lease agreement was terminated. Accordingly, the instant lease agreement was lawfully terminated.
Therefore, barring special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant real estate to the Plaintiff, and pay the Plaintiff the rent of KRW 3,200,000 (=200,000 per month x 16 months) accrued from January 8, 2017 to May 7, 2018 as sought by the Plaintiff after the Plaintiff succeeded to the lessor status under the instant lease agreement, and to pay the rent of KRW 200,00 per month or unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent of KRW 200,00 from May 8, 2018 to the completion date of delivery of the instant real estate.
In regard to this, the Defendant, until April 17, 2017, remitted the instant real estate to C’s account, which was the lessor, because it was unaware of the fact that the instant real estate was sold, and thereafter, the number of rents upon the Plaintiff’s request only for the delivery of real estate.