임대차보증금
1. Of the parts concerning the counterclaim against the judgment of the court of first instance, the money which orders the payment below.
A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed as the same.
1. Basic facts
A. The Defendants are married couple, the Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D site No. 114 square meters, and on its ground, the 114 square meters of neighborhood living facilities of the 4th floor above the ground and the 20 square meters of the 4th floor extension without permission (hereinafter “instant store”) connected to the right side of the building, and E is a joint owner of the 20th square meters of the 4th floor above the Plaintiff and operates the restaurant with the trade name “F
B. On September 27, 2013, in order to operate the restaurant by leasing the instant store, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for acquisition of the right (facilities) to acquire KRW 17,00,000 by transfer with E on September 27, 2013. On September 30, 2013, the Defendants and the instant store were paid a deposit of KRW 10,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 550,000 (Additional Taxation), and the lease period was determined from October 15, 2013 to October 14, 2015 (hereinafter “the instant lease contract”), and concluded a lease agreement with the Plaintiff, which sets the lease period of KRW 5,00,000,000, on the date of the contract, the remainder of KRW 5,000,000,000, on October 15, 2013, and paid the instant store for each of the instant facilities necessary for the business operation.
C. Since the instant store was constructed on the parking lot of a building that was originally impossible to enter the building, it constitutes an illegal expansion and thus, it was impossible to operate restaurant business within the statutory provisions.
Nevertheless, at the time of the Plaintiff entering into the foregoing contract, the general restaurant report was accepted in E’s name, but the competent authority notified the Plaintiff on December 6, 2013, following the Plaintiff’s possession and commencement of the business, that the instant store was an unlawful building, on the general building management ledger, and on January 24, 2014, the Plaintiff’s suspension of business within the instant store.
On December 30, 2013, a copy of the complaint of this case, stating that the contract of this case was revoked on the ground of deception, was served on the Defendants on December 30, 2013. The Plaintiff on October 2014.