손해배상(기)
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Basic facts
A. On January 23, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant to lease a building of about 10 square meters on the ground of Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu (hereinafter “instant building”) with the lease deposit of KRW 25 million, monthly rent of KRW 1.4 million, and the lease term of KRW 1.4 million from January 23, 2013 to January 22, 2015 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”), and thereafter, the said lease agreement was explicitly renewed.
B. While the Plaintiff was operating a mutually cafeteria called D’s “D” (hereinafter “instant cafeteria”) in the instant building, the Plaintiff continued to operate the said cafeteria due to the relationship of claims and obligations that occurred at the end of February 2017.
C. Since then, the Plaintiff’s words acquired the instant restaurant business from the Plaintiff, and until February 14, 2018, the Plaintiff occupied and used the instant building and operated the said restaurant. The business registration title holder with respect to the said restaurant changed from the Plaintiff to E’s pro-friendly job offering F, and changed from the Plaintiff to G, E again.
On the other hand, on April 5, 2017, the Plaintiff sent content-certified mail to the Defendant, through his agent, stating that “the Plaintiff, while operating the instant restaurant, was unable to operate the said restaurant from the end of February 2017 due to personal debt relations and family affairs. It was transferred to a third party the said restaurant business from the end of February 2017. Accordingly, the Plaintiff notified the termination of the instant lease agreement and requested refund of deposit KRW 25 million.”
E. On April 11, 2017, the Defendant served the Plaintiff’s above content-certified mail, and the Defendant accepted the Plaintiff’s request for termination of the instant lease agreement, and agreed to the termination of the instant lease agreement.
In addition, the plaintiff asserts that he transferred the leased object to a third party, and the defendant did not recognize it as a lessor in advance.