시설비
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Defendants exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On November 6, 2012, the Defendants prescribed the following special terms (hereinafter referred to as the “instant special terms”) with a deposit of KRW 80 million, monthly rent of KRW 500,000,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 500,000,000, and the period from December 21, 2012 to December 20, 2017, among the land buildings of the Seo-gu, Daegu-gu (hereinafter “instant building”) in which the Defendants shared one-third shares of each of the Plaintiff.
(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). Since a lessee is a facility, it is possible for the lessee to receive premiums and time facilities for the lessee after the lease.
A lessor is not involved in the premium.
If the building is sold, the lessor bears the burden of the facility at the time of the sale of the building.
B. After renting the store of this case, the Plaintiff: (a) and immediately after renting the store of this case, the major bank works (i) (i) and (ii) and (iii) and (iv) and (iv) and (iv) and the interior works of the commercial building (i) and (iv) and (v) and (v) and (iv) the total cost of the instant repair works is KRW 34,320,000 (hereinafter “instant facility cost”).
C. On January 21, 2016, at the request of the FF Company, the creditor of Defendant B, the voluntary auction of the instant building was commenced to the Seo-gu District Court Branch G on January 21, 2016. On September 11, 2017, the instant building was sold to H, the highest bidder, and on the other hand, on February 19, 2016, the Plaintiff reported the lien of KRW 66,00,000 for the facility cost of the instant store at the auction procedure.
On October 4, 2016, the Defendants filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for confirmation of existence of the right of retention (Seoul District Court Branch Decision 2016Kadan16959). However, on May 18, 2017, the said court rendered a judgment dismissing all the Defendants’ claims on the grounds that the Plaintiff’s claim for reimbursement of expenses equivalent to the amount disbursed to the instant repair work is recognized, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on July 11, 2017.