권리금 및 중개수수료
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Chief;
A. From July 1, 2008, the Plaintiff is a lessee who leased the same 63 square meters of the 1st floor of the 1st floor, among the building on the land of Daegu Suwon-gu C (hereinafter “instant building”). The Defendant is the owner and lessor of the instant building.
B. From July 1, 2008 to October 2016, the Plaintiff leased the instant building for eight years. Around June 29, 2012, the Plaintiff extended the term of lease to the instant building, and paid 40 million won premium to the Defendant.
However, at the time of receiving the said premium from the Plaintiff, the Defendant promised to allow the Plaintiff to receive KRW 100 million premium in relation to the lease of the building of this case, but the Defendant violated such promise, and thus, is obligated to pay the said premium to the Plaintiff as compensation for damages incurred therefrom, or the Defendant lost the opportunity to recover the premium under the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act, and thus, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay the said money to the Plaintiff as compensation for damages incurred therefrom, or is not so.
Even if the defendant forced to pay the above money to the plaintiff, the above money is obligated to return it to the plaintiff with unjust enrichment.
C. On July 2008, at the time of the Plaintiff’s moving into the building of this case, the Defendant was obligated to repair commercial facilities and pay the value-added tax of KRW 9,000,000. On the Defendant’s request, the said value-added tax was paid by the Plaintiff on behalf of the Defendant.
On September 2009, the plaintiff has been acting as a broker for the Jeonsung-gu Daegu Apartment Building No. 106 5202, which is owned by the defendant around September 2009, and the defendant has not paid 3.6 million won to the present.
E. At the time of the removal of the building of this case from the building of this case, the Defendant left the administrator of the building of this case with the settlement of the monthly rent for the Plaintiff. The building administrator received 3.8 million won more from the Plaintiff due to the error of calculation.
However, the defendant does not return the above money.