위약금청구
1. The Defendant’s KRW 45,00,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from December 16, 2016 to October 10, 2017, and the following.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff, from Nonparty C, operated a restaurant (hereinafter referred to as “instant restaurant”) that sells the first floor of the building on the ground of the Yansan-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter referred to as “E”) with the trade name “E” from June 1, 2016 to May 31, 2018, setting the lease period from June 1, 2016 to June 1, 2016 to June 31, 2018.
B. Around that time, the Defendant was operating “G” in the name of “G,” and the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant on July 5, 2016 with the following terms (hereinafter “instant contract”), and was operating the instant restaurant to the Defendant.
A B
C. From July 2016, the Defendant operated the instant restaurant in accordance with the instant contract, and there was a conflict between the Plaintiff and the Defendant regarding the operating method of the restaurant. On October 23, 2016, the Defendant sent H message to the Plaintiff on October 23, 2016, and the instant restaurant closed its business around October 2016.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 7, and 8, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The parties' assertion
A. After entering into the instant contract, the Defendant’s failure to perform his/her duty to manage the instant restaurant, thereby reducing the sales of the instant restaurant. In such a situation, the Defendant unilaterally suspended the operation of the restaurant around October 23, 2016, and the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff KRW 67,50,000 as penalty and damages for delay as stipulated in the instant contract.
B. The Defendant alleged that the instant restaurant was operated by the Defendant, at the time of the Defendant’s failure to operate the instant restaurant, and it was difficult for the Defendant to operate the restaurant from the beginning. Accordingly, even when the Plaintiff continued to operate the instant restaurant upon the Plaintiff’s request even in the circumstances where the customer fell and the enemy continued to fall, the Plaintiff is running the instant restaurant only until October 30, 2016.