Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

On March 16, 2011, the Plaintiff leased the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as “instant real estate”) to the Defendant by setting the lease deposit of KRW 20,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 400,000 (repaid on April 19), and the lease term from April 26, 201 to April 25, 2013.

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). On April 8, 2013, the Defendant lent the instant real estate to C in KRW 400,000 per month, and C acquired the instant real estate from the Defendant on the same day and occupied and used the instant real estate until February 22, 2014.

In this regard, on March 25, 2013, the Plaintiff decided to lease the instant real estate as KRW 20,000,000 per month, and KRW 400,000 per month, and received KRW 2,000,000 as the down payment from C. On April 10, 2013, the Plaintiff agreed to cancel the lease contract with C and returned KRW 20,000,000 to C.

On April 5, 2013, according to the request for auction by the Central Saemaul Depository, the mortgagee of the instant real estate, the auction procedure was initiated with D of Incheon District Court regarding the instant real estate, and on January 29, 2014, the said real estate was sold to E in accordance with the above voluntary auction procedure.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 4, 12, 15 evidence, Eul 1 through 3, and the plaintiff's assertion of the purport of the whole argument as to the purport of the whole argument, the defendant did not pay rent in good faith in accordance with the lease contract of this case but did not pay rent, and it committed a tort sub-lease without the plaintiff's consent, and therefore, the real estate of this case was sold by auction.

1. Since losses such as the entries in the list have occurred, the defendant shall compensate the plaintiff for the amount of damages.

Judgment

In determining the scope of damages due to non-performance of obligation, there is no natural or factual causal relationship between the non-performance of obligation and the damage, and there is a proximate causal relationship, i.e., ideological or legal causation.

Supreme Court Decision 200