beta
Text
1. The defendant is against the plaintiff (appointed party).
(a) deliver the real estate listed in the separate sheet;
(b) KRW 4,290,000 and April 2016.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On July 13, 2016, the Defendant leased the instant store from the Plaintiff (designated parties; hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff”) and the Selection C with the lease deposit amount of KRW 10 million, monthly rent of KRW 1430,000 (including value-added tax), and the lease term of KRW 1430,000 (including value-added tax), from July 13, 2016 to July 12, 2018, in order to operate the place of massage in the E-building 304 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant store”).
(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). B.
According to the terms and conditions of the instant lease agreement, in the event that the lessee fails to pay the rent for a period of three years, the lessor is entitled to terminate the lease immediately.
C. As the Defendant did not pay the monthly rent for at least three months from July 13, 2017, the Plaintiff and the Appointed C notified the Defendant that the instant lease contract was terminated on October 17, 2016 by content-proof mail for at least three months.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the facts of the above recognition, the instant lease contract was lawfully terminated and terminated according to the Plaintiff’s declaration of intention and the Appointed C that the instant lease contract was terminated due to the Defendant’s failure to pay monthly rent for at least three months.
Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant store to the Plaintiff, barring any special circumstances, and to pay 4.29 million won in arrears as of October 12, 2017 (i.e., KRW 1430,000 x 3 months), and to pay for unjust enrichment equivalent to monthly rent or monthly rent, calculated at the rate of KRW 1.430,00 per month from October 13, 2017 to the completion date of delivery of the instant store.
In this regard, the defendant's assertion that the monthly rent can not be paid because the plaintiff could not run his business on the wind that the plaintiff reported to be a sexual traffic business place while the defendant accepted the store in this case for the sentst place business.