기타(금전)
1. The part against the defendant among the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part is revoked.
1. The scope of this Court’s adjudication at the first instance court, where the Plaintiff sought payment of the unpaid monthly rent of KRW 198,000, penalty of KRW 450,000, and the construction cost of KRW 300,000, and the removal cost of KRW 60,000, and the first instance court rejected the remainder of the claim, and only the Defendant appealed, the scope of this Court’s adjudication is limited to the claim for payment of KRW 198,00,000, as the unpaid monthly rent of KRW 198,00.
2. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is a company with the purpose of facility security service business, etc.
The defendant is a person who operates a restaurant with the trade name "D" (hereinafter referred to as the "store of this case") in the Seocho-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City.
B. On March 21, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant for the contract period of three years, and entered into a contract for ice beauty services (hereinafter “instant contract”) with 300,000 won in the construction cost, monthly paid-in fee of KRW 60,000 in the main body of the instant store, installation device, and six Kamera (hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant equipment”).
The provisions of the ice beauty service terms and conditions on the instant contract (hereinafter “instant terms and conditions”) are as follows.
Article 12 Termination of Contracts
1. The customer may cancel or terminate the contract in any of the following cases:
3. If the company has neglected or is likely to neglect the expenses agreed upon by the company and the customer has failed to take measures appropriate for the provision of the services and the provision of the services agreed upon within a given period.
C. From September 30, 2016, the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to adjust the location of Kameras and adjust their respective levels over several occasions, but the Plaintiff did not comply therewith.
On the other hand, around February 2017, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to pay KRW 198,00 equivalent to the monthly fixed pay for three months from September 2016 to February 2017. The Defendant on March 17, 2017.