사용료
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is that the court’s acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance deleted “(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 8: April 14, 2005, etc.) 5 of the grounds for the judgment of the court of first instance (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 8, Apr. 14, 2005) and, except for adding the following judgments, it is identical to the reasoning of
2. On April 2014, the Defendant made an offer to terminate the agreement on the instant lease agreement to the effect that the Plaintiff would deliver the instant building because the Defendant would not increase the rent because the Plaintiff would demand the Defendant to pay the rent, through the chief of the department in charge of the management of the instant building, and would not request the Defendant to pay the rent. The Defendant asserted that the instant lease agreement was terminated at that time.
Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the statements and arguments by Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence 3, and Eul evidence, the defendant sent to the plaintiff on April 22, 2014, a certificate of content to the effect that, although there was a lot of dialogue between the plaintiff and the defendant from April 7, 2014 to April 22, 2014, the plaintiff notified the plaintiff of the decision of the defendant, it would be possible to provide cooperation so that the conclusion of the lease contract would be achieved harmoniously. Accordingly, on April 28, 2014, the plaintiff sent to the defendant a certificate of content to the effect that the termination date of the lease contract was up to April 30, 2015 pursuant to the contract provisions, and that the details of the increase of the rent that the defendant points out are irrelevant to the termination of the contract.
In light of the above facts, it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff made an offer to terminate the agreement on the instant lease agreement to the Defendant in early April 2014 only with the descriptions of the evidence Nos. 1 through 5, and that the Plaintiff had an intention to agree on the termination of agreement among the original and the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
The defendant's above assertion is without merit.
3. Conclusion Plaintiff