beta
Text
1. The defendant is against the plaintiffs:
(a) deliver the second floor of 56.42 square meters among the buildings listed in the attached list;
(b) from August 11, 2015.
Reasons
1. The following facts are acknowledged as either of the parties to a dispute or as a whole by taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in each entry in Gap evidence 1 to 3:
A. On November 11, 2012, the Plaintiffs, the owners of the buildings listed in the attached list (hereinafter “the instant building”) leased the second floor (the part indicated in paragraph (a) of the instant building) of the instant building to the Defendant by setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 1 million, monthly rent of KRW 300,000,000, and the lease term of two years.
B. Since then, the above lease agreement between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant was maintained through an implied renewal, and the Defendant began to delay the payment of the monthly rent as agreed from March 11, 2015, and did not pay the Plaintiffs a monthly rent, except for the payment of KRW 500,000,000 to the Plaintiffs on April 6, 2015 and May 50, 2015 as monthly rent.
C. On April 1, 2016, the Plaintiffs expressed their intent to terminate the renewed lease agreement on the grounds of at least two years of delay in the event that the Defendant fails to pay the overdue rent within seven days, and the said declaration of intent reached the Defendant around the said time.
2. According to the facts of the above recognition, the renewed lease contract between the plaintiffs and the defendant is deemed to have been lawfully terminated due to more than two years of delay of rent.
Therefore, the defendant delivers the second floor of the building of this case to the plaintiffs, and as requested by the plaintiffs, the defendant has a duty to pay the unpaid monthly rent of 300,000 won from August 11, 2015 to the delivery date of the above building after appropriating the total of 1 million won paid by the defendant in 2015 to the monthly rent of 4 months.
3. If so, the plaintiffs' claims of this case are justified.