beta
Text
1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant exceeding the amount ordered to be paid below.
Reasons
1. The reasoning for this part of the judgment of the court is the same as that of the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420
2. Determination as to the cause of action
A. According to the above facts, the Defendant’s request for delivery of a building: (a) KRW 105,741,935 for at least two rents from March 1, 2016 to July 25, 2016 (including value-added tax; hereinafter the same shall apply) x four months (from March 1, 2016 to June 30, 2016) x 2 million x 25 days/31 days (from July 1, 2016 to July 25, 2016) (hereinafter the same shall apply);
[] The Plaintiff’s delayed payment, and the content-certified mail containing the Plaintiff’s intention of termination on July 25, 2016, was served on the Defendant on or around July 25, 2016. Thus, the instant lease agreement was lawfully terminated. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff, barring any special circumstance. Accordingly, the Defendant asserts that the instant lease agreement is guaranteed until August 23, 2017 according to the instant annexed agreement, notwithstanding the Defendant’s delinquency in rent.
In light of the following circumstances, namely, ① the instant annexed agreement was made between C and D, and Es.S. Co., Ltd., and it was not made between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, the Plaintiff does not have any obligation to guarantee the term of the lease agreement pursuant to the annexed agreement, ② there is no special circumstance to deem that the Plaintiff was excluded from the grounds for termination of the contract while the instant lease agreement extended the term to August 23, 2017, and the Plaintiff was excluded from the grounds for termination of the contract, regardless of the Defendant’s delinquency in rent, it cannot be deemed that the instant lease agreement was guaranteed until August 23, 2017, notwithstanding the Defendant’s delinquency in rent.
Therefore, the defendant's above assertion cannot be accepted.
(b) overdue rent, return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent, and one arrears claim for unpaid electricity;