2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

A. The Plaintiff entered into an overall implementation contract with the company (hereinafter “O○○○ Commercial Building”) which promoted a market reconstruction project on a lot of 4,144.3 square meters in Jung-gu, Seoul and Jung-gu, Seoul ( Address omitted), which is the land for the Dongdaemun-gu market, on a new commercial building project with “O○○○ Commercial Building” (hereinafter “the instant commercial building”). Under the said contract, the Plaintiff is a company that carried out the sales business of the right of lease of the commercial building of this case, which is newly constructed by transfer of the right of lease from the residents of the Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul, the members of the Plaintiff, and the lessees of the Dongdaemun-gu market.

B. On June 19, 2008 and July 1, 2008, the Plaintiff entered into a lease sale contract with the Defendant on the two-story unit of the underground floor among the instant commercial buildings with each of the following (hereinafter “instant lease sale contract”).

Article 1 (Indication of Leased Real Estate)

(1) Real estate concerned shall be as follows:

The target store: One unit of 2-story underground (the exclusive use area of one unit: 3.9 square meters) and the target type of business: Consumer products and imported goods.

* the scheduled date of occupancy: December 2009 (it may be changed according to the process, and the period of saleroom occupants shall be notified individually later).

(2) The specific location of a store shall be determined by drawing lots after the payment of remainder and shall be settled according to the area of the store determined by drawing lots.

(3) After drawing a store, a direct lease contract with a lessor is prepared, and such sales contract becomes void after drawing up a new lease contract, and a relationship with a lessor shall be governed by a new lease contract.

Article 2 (Payment of Price)

(1) A rental deposit out of the rent for lease shall be as follows, and where there is an increase or decrease in the area after a store drawing, the final settlement shall be made pursuant to Articles 4 and 5 and the additional taxes shall be separately imposed:

82,000,000 won in total of rental proceeds

Rental Deposit 38,500,000 won

43,500,000 won for parcelling-out except for rental deposit;

(2) The sale price shall be paid by the 25th day of the designated month in installments as follows, and an additional tax on the sale price, excluding rental deposit, shall be separately imposed (Provided, That each payment payment date of the contract dated July 1, 2008 is designated one month after the following deadline):

17,270,00 won at the time of concluding a down payment contract, the first intermediate payment in July 2008, the second intermediate payment in September 2008, the third intermediate payment in November 2008, the fourth intermediate payment in February 2009, respectively 12,952,50 won at the time of February 17, 2009, the remainder in October 27, 2009,00 won.

Article 3 (Arrears)

If a buyer fails to pay the purchase price within the due date, the overdue charge shall be paid by adding the overdue charge calculated from the day after the payment is designated by applying the rate of 19% per annum according to the overdue period.

Article 4 (Lease Area)

(1) A store lease area shall be the area calculated by adding the area for exclusive use to the area for exclusive use, and the rent for lease is an amount equivalent to the area for exclusive use on each floor, and where there is an increase or decrease in the area for exclusive use after adding a store, it shall be adjusted by adding the sales price in proportion to

(2) No purchaser shall raise an objection to the increase or decrease of the exclusive use area of one unit based on the change of a building plan or business plan, adjustment of the formation of a commercial building, results of construction works, etc., and the increase or decrease in the sale price following such increase or decrease in

Article 5 (Rental Deposit)

(1) A rental deposit included in the sale price is the amount for the exclusive area of one unit by floor, and a buyer shall settle the rental deposit according to the lease area of the store allocated after drawing.

(2) Upon termination of a lease contract, a lessor shall be liable to refund the rental deposit out of the rent, and no lessor shall be liable to refund the sale price except for the rental deposit.

Article 6 (Rents)

(1) The rent for one unit on the two-story underground shall be 650,000 won based on the sale area of 13.22 square meters (based on four square meters), and it shall be determined for each store in a manner that increases or decreases depending on the lease area of the store allocated after the drawing of the store: Provided, That the surcharge shall be separately imposed.

Article 17 (Transfer of Rights and Duties)

(1) After the payment of any balance, the buyer of a facility by units shall enter into a new lease contract directly with the lessor to succeed to the terms of the contract for lease and purchase, and the contract for lease and

C. On February 2010, the Defendant received a final determination of △△△△△△△ (exclusive-use area of 3.95 square meters, 18.74 square meters) on the second underground floor among the instant commercial buildings, △△△△△△△△ (exclusive-use area of 3.95 square meters, 18.74 square meters) (exclusive-use area of 3.91 square meters, 12.90 square meters, and 18.08 square meters) and the place of the address of

D. The Defendant paid only KRW 224,510,00 out of the rent-sale price in the second floor, △△△, △△△, and △△△, △△, and △△, respectively. On March 19, 2010, the Plaintiff notified that the remainder of the rent-sale price in accordance with the store area should be paid by April 30, 2010.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Gap evidence 2 to 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

(a) Methods to settle the sales price;

1) In light of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to interpret that the rent, excluding rental deposit, is calculated according to the increase and decrease rate of the exclusive use area pursuant to the latter part of Article 4(1), and the lease deposit is calculated according to the leased area added to the exclusive use area pursuant to the latter part of Article 5(1) and the rent is calculated based on 13.22 square meters of the leased area.

① Each lease contract of this case is based on the settlement of the rent-sale price, and Article 4(1) provides that the rent-sale price shall be the exclusive area plus the common area.

(2) The latter part of Article 4 (1) and the latter part of Article 5 (1) clearly differ from the method of calculating lease proceeds and lease deposit, excluding security deposit. Most of all, the lease deposit can be returned by the buyer later from the lessor, and the lease object can be seen as the sum of exclusive and common areas. Therefore, even if the lease deposit is calculated by taking the basis of the sum of exclusive and common areas, its method is unreasonable.

(3) Even under Article 6, the sale area which serves as the basis for rent shall specify 13.22 square meters.

(4) Even if the former part of Article 5(1) of the contract states, “The lease deposit is an amount for the exclusive use area of one unit by floor,” it is intended to emphasize that there can be a settlement under the latter part of the same paragraph, and this expression alone cannot be deemed to have agreed to settle only where the exclusive use area increases, such as the sale price excluding the lease deposit.

Accordingly, the details of the settlement of the sales price for the defendant are as follows (the basis for the calculation of the sales price is the same as the calculation of the sales price in attached Form).

4,575,00 44,057,000 4,405,700 4,405,700 103,037,700 △△△△△△,700 △△△△68,568,00 43,61,000 41,361,361,100 45,540,540,100 △△△△△△ 52,653,653,000 42,830,000 42,830,283,000 42,283,000, 9,76,000 28,343,80

2) Under the premise that it is unreasonable to increase the rental deposit upon the reduction of the exclusive use area, the Defendant asserts that Articles 4 and 5 of each of the instant lease sale agreements do not indicate the leased area and cannot be incorporated into the terms of the contract in violation of the duty of explanation or cannot be incorporated into the terms of the contract in violation of Article 6 of the Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act (hereinafter “Terms and Conditions Act”).

However, in full view of the fact that each lease contract of this case is naturally premised on the settlement of the lease price, and it seems that the buyer might have easily predicted it from the standpoint of the buyer, and the lease sale area is defined as adding the exclusive area and the public area, and Article 6 Article 13.22m2m2 is written, and such settlement cannot be deemed as being unfairly disadvantageous or unexpected to the defendant who is the buyer, the claim regarding the terms and conditions law of the defendant cannot be accepted.

B. Sub-determination

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff 63,83,800 won remaining after deducting 224,510,000 won from the total lease price of 288,343,80 won under the ground of the instant shopping mall, △△△△△△△, △△△△△△, and △△△△△, which is the day following the due date for payment, from May 1, 2010 to May 12, 2015, the agreed interest rate of 19%, the next day from the next day until September 30, 2015, the main sentence of Article 3(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings (amended by Presidential Decree No. 26553, Sep. 25, 2015); and damages for delay calculated by 19% per annum from the next day after the due date to the due date.

3. Judgment on the defendant's other arguments

(a) A lease agreement or invalid or invalid;

1) The assertion

The Defendant concluded each lease agreement of this case by misunderstanding that the instant commercial buildings were sold from the Plaintiff and the non-party partnership rather than leasing the commercial buildings due to the advertisement of “the execution by the general project executor as part of the reconstruction project” and the expression “sale”. Each lease agreement of this case is not established or null and void due to the lack of agreement between the parties as to the terms and conditions of the agreement.

2) Determination

In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings, the following facts can be acknowledged in the statement in Gap evidence 1-1-3 and Gap evidence 7-7. In other words, the plaintiff concluded a comprehensive execution contract with the non-party union for acquiring the right to lease of the commercial building of this case, and entered into a lease contract with the non-party union members by taking over the right to lease from the lessee of the commercial building before reconstruction. After that, at the same time, the members of the non-party union entered into an agreement with the non-party union on the right to lease of the individual commercial building of this case with the plaintiff and the lessee at the time when the location of the store is determined by lot through the lease procedure. Accordingly, the plaintiff entered into each lease contract of this case with the defendant as the party to the lease contract of this case, the plaintiff and the defendant specified the number of floors and size of the store leased by the defendant, and the specific location of the store after the payment of the rent and rent, and the lease contract of this case becomes null and void.

Therefore, it shall be deemed that each of the lease contracts of this case was concluded with the intent of the parties to the contract, the object of the contract, the lease price, and the rent, etc., as agreed by the parties to the contract and the defendant. Therefore, the defendant's assertion on a different premise

B. Nullity of a contract due to violation of the duty of explanation

1) The assertion

Of the respective lease contracts of this case, only the part of the deposit can be returned at the time of termination of the lease, and the provisions that the remainder of the sale price excluding the deposit deposit cannot be returned, and the provisions that the buyer shall pay the prop car (rent) constitutes a standardized contract printed in the same text. However, since the Plaintiff did not explain the above provisions to the Defendant at the time of conclusion of each lease contract of this case, it cannot be asserted as the content of the contract pursuant to Article 3(4) of the Terms and Conditions Act, and if the above provisions are null and void, each of the lease contracts of this case is invalid because it is impossible to achieve the purpose of the contract or is unfairly unfavorable to the Defendant who

2) Determination

According to the above facts, each of the lease contracts of this case provides that "lease sale contract" is stipulated in the cover of each of the lease contracts of this case, and Article 2 provides that the sale price of this case, excluding the rental deposit and the rental deposit, is clearly arranged by the contract form, intermediate payment, and balance, and Article 6 is the monthly rent. In addition, each of the items of evidence No. 1-3 and evidence No. 7-7, which can be acknowledged by considering the whole purport of the pleadings, is as follows: ① The defendant clearly perceived that "lease sale price includes the rental deposit, and only the rental deposit is returned from the lessor at the time of the termination of the lease contract with the lessor," and ② The lease sale price is not clearly explained to the defendant that the buyer violated the terms and conditions of the contract form and the right to use the store through payment of the deposit and monthly rent for the relevant store, and even if there are some differences in the contract form and contents, it is difficult to view that the remainder of the terms and conditions of the lease contract of this case were not commonly known to the defendant at the time of this case.

(c)Revocation on the ground of deception by false or exaggerated advertisements;

1) The assertion

While recognizing the fact that the commercial building of this case is not connected to one another through the subway stations and the same gate design writers, etc., which will be newly developed, the Plaintiff knew or could not be connected at least through the underground pedestrian space, the Plaintiff, as seen above, induced the Defendant by making a false or exaggerated advertisement as if the commercial building of this case was formed a large-scale underground right connected through the underground pedestrian space. Based on this, the Defendant expressed his/her intent to revoke each lease sale contract of this case in the case of the Seoul Central District Court 2010 Gohap17982, 2010 Gohap32196, 2010 Gohap37054 (Joint), 2010 Gohap37054 (Joint), 2010 Gohap8601 (Joint), 2010 Gohap105827 (Joint) (hereinafter referred to as the “related case”).

2) Determination

The evidence presented by the Defendant alone is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff, at the time of entering into each of the instant lease contracts, failed to notify the Plaintiff of the fact that the instant commercial building was not connected to the subway station, etc. and underground space, or made a false or exaggerated advertisement by providing false information actively, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this differently, the Defendant’s assertion on this part cannot be accepted (the first instance court and the appellate court also rejected the Defendant’s assertion).

(d) Cancellation of a contract due to default;

1) The assertion

The plaintiff advertised that the subway station and the commercial building of this case are linked, and accordingly, set the sales price of the first and second floors above the ground level, but did not develop underground space at all. Thus, the defendant cancelled each lease sale contract of this case on the ground of incomplete performance of the plaintiff's obligations.

2) Determination

The evidence submitted by the defendant alone is insufficient to recognize that the sale price of the first and second floors underground of the commercial building of this case is higher than that of the other floors on the premise that the sale price of the commercial building of this case and the subway station of this case is connected, or that the sale price of the other floors of the commercial building of this case is higher than that of the ordinary commercial building of this case in the same area, and there is no other evidence to recognize this differently, and thus, the defendant's assertion

E. Termination of the extinctive prescription regarding the remainder of 34,540,000 won, excluding the amount settled from the rent of this case

1) The assertion

The statute of limitations expired after the lapse of five years from October 31, 2009, as commercial obligations, the remainder of 34,540,000 won, excluding the settlement amount of the area, out of the sales price under each lease contract of this case. Since the instant lawsuit was filed on March 9, 2015, five years thereafter, the statute of limitations expired.

2) Determination

According to the above facts, the Plaintiff notified that the remainder of the rent-sale price according to the store size should be paid by April 30, 2010 on or around March 19, 2010, and delayed the due date for the remainder of the rent-sale price as of April 30, 2010. The instant lawsuit was filed five years before the due date for which the grace period was postponed. Accordingly, the Defendant’s assertion on a different premise is unacceptable.

(f) Concurrent performance defenses;

1) The assertion

Under each lease contract of this case, the Plaintiff is obligated to acquire the right of lease by allowing the Defendant to enter into a lease agreement with the owner of the building of this case as stipulated in each lease agreement of this case. The obligation to allow the Defendant to enter into a lease agreement and the Defendant’s obligation to pay the balance are in a simultaneous performance relationship, or it is possible to enter into the above lease agreement, and thus, there is an unstable defense under Article 536(2) of the Civil Act.

2) Determination

Article 17 of the lease sale contract of this case stipulates that the remainder payment should be made first, and the evidence submitted by the defendant alone is not sufficient to conclude a lease contract on the second floor △△, △△, △△, △△, and △△, △, and △△, thus, the defendant's argument also cannot be accepted.

4. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remainder is dismissed.

[Attachment]

Support before judges