임대료지급 등
1. The defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance, including any claim added by the plaintiff (appointed party) in this court.
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation as to this part of the underlying facts is that the pertinent part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to that of the corresponding part, except where the Defendant B’s “B” is deemed to be “B.” As such, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of
[Attachment 4, 5] 2. Judgment of the court of first instance
A. Facts of recognition 1) The Plaintiff, the first instance court of Seoul Central District Court 2017Kahap589431, which was sold by the Plaintiff, etc., is the Plaintiff, the lessee of each of the instant lease agreements on the hotel rooms of this case (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”).
(i) the claim for the payment of the unpaid rent and the future rent from May 2017 (the specific content is as stated in the aforementioned preliminary claim).
(2) On February 27, 2019, the court of first instance accepted the Plaintiff’s claim against the non-party company, and the part against the non-party company in the judgment of the court of first instance became final and conclusive as it is because the non-party company did not file an appeal.) On the basis of the above final judgment against the non-party company, the Plaintiff was issued a seizure and collection order (hereinafter “the collection order of this case”) with respect to “the amount until it reaches KRW 3,122,715,948, which the non-party company holds against the non-party company as the third debtor under the above final judgment against the non-party company as to the non-party company.”
3. From July 1, 2016 to May 9, 2025, the Defendant entered into the instant sub-lease contract with Nonparty Company and the effect that the period of sub-lease with respect to the instant hotel is from July 1, 2016 to May 1, 2025, and that the sub-lease fee is “the amount calculated by subtracting necessary expenses, such as personnel expenses, and revenues from the total income after the Defendant was entrusted with the instant hotel,” and possessed and used the instant hotel from July 1, 2016.
The defendant and the other co-owners of the hotel of this case.