A. At the same time, the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) received KRW 2,500,000 from the Plaintiff.

Basic Facts

On October 28, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with each of the Defendants to lease each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant building”) with a deposit of KRW 50,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 3,000,000, and the lease term from February 1, 2017 to January 31, 2019 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

Before entering into the instant lease agreement, D and E, the Plaintiff’s parent, operated a general restaurant in the name of “F” on the instant building. The Defendants paid KRW 50,000,000 to D and E as premium at the time of entering into the instant lease agreement.

[Ground of recognition] The Defendants asserted that the lawsuit of this case against the Defendants is unlawful as there is no standing to be a party, since the Defendants are not the parties to the lease contract of this case but the Plaintiff’s parents D and E, and thus, the lawsuit of this case seeking the return, etc. of the object of the lease contract of this case against the Defendants is not a party.

In a lawsuit for performance, the standing to sue is in place of the plaintiff's own claim and the judgment is absorbed into the propriety judgment of the claim, so a person who asserts that he has the right to demand performance has standing to sue (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Da18451, Nov. 28, 1995). The defendant's prior defense on the merits is without merit.

The question of who is the party to the contract of this case is the interpretation of the intention of the party involved in the contract.

The interpretation of expression of intent is to clearly define the objective meaning that the parties have given to the act of indication, and where the contents of a contract are written in writing, which is a disposal document, it is not written.