2...

Since the defendant appealed only the part of the claim for the total amount of repair costs among the counterclaim claims, the scope of the counterclaim judgment shall be limited to the above part.

1. Basic facts

A. On December 31, 2007, the Plaintiff, as the owner of the building on the second floor E of Gangseo-gu Busan Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant building”). On December 31, 2007, on a deposit of KRW 30,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 1,500,000, the Plaintiff leased the said building to F.

F operated the restaurant in the name of “G” on the first floor of the above building, and around June 201, the lease contract was terminated while the Defendant, who worked as the main kitchen of the above restaurant, was urged to go beyond the restaurant.

B. On June 21, 201, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with C, a part of the Plaintiff’s first floor of the instant building (hereinafter “the instant leased object”) with KRW 30,000,000, the lease term of KRW 60,000, the monthly rent of KRW 1,700,000, and KRW 2,000,000, the monthly rent of KRW 18 months after the 18 month period (hereinafter “the first lease agreement”).

On the same day, the designated parties C prepared a written confirmation that the Plaintiff shall be held responsible for the unpaid monthly tax amount of KRW 13,640,000 from F, and the Defendant signed as the guarantor.

C. On June 13, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with D, the mother of the Defendant and C, and the instant leased object at KRW 30,00,00,000 (hereinafter “the second lease agreement”). Paragraph (2) of the said lease agreement provides that “The instant lease agreement is concluded as a settlement deposit on June 25, 2016 for the rent deposited by the lessee and the settlement deposit on June 25, 2016.”

Defendant and Appointors operated a restaurant with the trade name “H” from the leased object of this case, and operated a laundry with the trade name “I” separately.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1 to 3, .