채무부존재확인
1. On November 24, 2015, regarding the real estate stated in the attached list, the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).
A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.
1. Basic facts
A. On October 6, 2010, the Defendant leased real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) from the Plaintiff as KRW 4,000,000,000 for deposit money, KRW 233,00,000 for rent month, KRW 49,000 for management expenses (excluding value-added tax) and KRW 49,000 for wedding business.
1. The Defendant ordered the Plaintiff on November 22, 2015, which is the expiration date of the lease agreement, to order the instant real estate.
2.(a)
The Plaintiff and the Defendant may re-contract by mutual agreement 60 days prior to the expiration of the term of the lease, and if the extension of the contract or the renewal of the contract is not concluded by 60 days prior to the expiration of the term of the lease, this contract is automatically canceled, and the Defendant must order the instant real estate without any condition.
10.(a)
When a lease contract is terminated or terminated, the defendant shall order the plaintiff to do so. All facilities within the real estate of this case shall belong to the plaintiff, and the defendant shall remove his own property and property before the end of the contract, and shall return the key and the property of the plaintiff to the plaintiff.
B. On January 18, 2011, the Plaintiff and the Defendant rendered a compromise prior to the filing of a lawsuit with the Seoul Eastern District Court Decision 2010Da738, supra, as follows.
C. On April 13, 2012, the Defendant completed the registration of creation of a right to lease on a deposit basis as Seoul Central District Court No. 82844, 82845, and 82847, which was received on April 13, 2012.
On November 24, 2015, the Plaintiff drafted a “certificate” with the Defendant as follows:
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 4, Gap evidence 9-1 to 6, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Summary of both claims;
A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Defendant did not specify the instant real estate on January 31, 2016, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay an amount equivalent to the balance of the deposit as the amount of damages pursuant to paragraph (4) of the confirmation document. This would remain a set-off against the Defendant’s claim