임대차보증금
1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) pays KRW 10 million to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).
2. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) shall be the opposing defendant.
A principal lawsuit and counterclaim shall also be deemed a principal lawsuit and counterclaim.
1. Basic facts
A. On June 22, 2004, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with C on a deposit of KRW 10 million, monthly rent of KRW 400,000, and the lease period of KRW 100,000,000, June 30, 2004, on the attached list (hereinafter “the instant lease agreement”) among the 4th floor of the building built of reinforced concrete D E-S (DE) building in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu (hereinafter “instant building”).
(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). B.
On December 20, 2004, the Plaintiff registered its business with the trade name “G” and operated a dan in the leased part of this case.
C. The instant lease agreement was implicitly renewed after the expiration of the lease term, and the voluntary auction was commenced on the fourth-story building, including the leased portion, at the request of the HH association, which was the mortgagee (Ulsan District Court I) and on February 22, 2017, the Defendant succeeded to the lessor’s status as to the leased portion, even when the ownership was sold and the ownership was transferred.
The Plaintiff is in possession of the leased part of this case since December 2015 without paying monthly rent to the present.
E. The Defendant expressed his/her intent to terminate the instant lease agreement on the grounds of the Plaintiff’s delinquency in rent for at least two years on the service of the duplicate of the instant counterclaim, and on December 11, 2017, the duplicate of the said counterclaim reached the Plaintiff.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 3, 5, 6 evidence, Eul evidence 2, 4 to 8 and video (including, if any, additional statements)
2. Determination as to the claim on the principal lawsuit
A. On April 2017, the gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion (1) indicated that the Defendant removed the Plaintiff’s dan dynas signboard without the Plaintiff’s consent, and that the Plaintiff would not conclude a re-contract unless it is accepted while demanding the Plaintiff to make a monthly increase in rent in the process of discussing the re-contract. As above, the Defendant is a lessor.