손해배상(기)
The Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) shall pay KRW 137,525,000 to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the amount from July 1, 2016 to February 8, 2018.
A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.
Facts of recognition
On June 17, 2013, the Plaintiff leased from the Defendant the building of the 2nd floor C subparagraph 1 (hereinafter “instant commercial building”) of Daegu-gu, Daegu-gu (hereinafter “instant commercial building”) with the lease deposit of KRW 7 million, KRW 4.4 million per month (including value-added tax), and the lease term from June 17, 2013 to June 16, 2015, the Plaintiff began to operate the restaurant in the instant commercial building with the trade name “D” from that time. Since then, the Plaintiff and the Defendant began to operate the restaurant in the instant commercial building with the lease deposit of KRW 7.63 million, KRW 4,796,00 (including value-added tax), and the lease term of KRW 7.3 million from June 17, 2015 to June 16, 2016 (hereinafter “the lease contract”).
From January 4, 2016, five months prior to the expiration of the instant lease agreement, the Plaintiff expressed to the Defendant the intent to recover the premium by arranging for a new lessee pursuant to the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act (hereinafter “the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act”) without extending the period any longer upon the expiration of the instant lease agreement. In introducing a new lessee, the Plaintiff expressed that the Plaintiff would cooperate in recovering the premium by concluding the relevant lease agreement.
However, at that time, the Defendant expressed his intention to deliver the instant commercial building upon the expiration of the term of the instant lease agreement or to maintain the said lease agreement more than two years.
On May 16, 2016, the Plaintiff transferred to E all rights, such as business rights, facilities, and fixtures of “D” to E. However, the Plaintiff concluded a business transfer and takeover agreement and premium agreement with the purport that if a new lease agreement on the instant commercial building was not concluded due to a lessor’s rejection of a contract, etc., the Plaintiff would be null and void.
Accordingly, from May 17, 2016 to May 19, 2016, the Plaintiff attached telephone or E contracts to the Defendant several times.