점포명도 등
1. Of the counterclaim of this case, 40,000,000 won and damages for delay shall be dismissed.
2. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) is the Plaintiff.
1. Basic facts
A. On July 1, 2014, the Plaintiff, a lessee of each real estate listed in the separate sheet, sub-leases the portion inside the ship connected each point of 1,2,3,6, and 1 in the separate sheet among the real estate listed in the separate sheet to the Defendant in the following contents (hereinafter “the sub-lease contract of this case”), which is 21.64 square meters for each point of 3,4,5,6, and 3 of the same drawings among the two real estate listed in the same list as indicated in the separate sheet 11.36 square meters, among the real estate listed in the separate sheet 1, the portion inside the ship connected each point of 3,4,5,6, and 21.64 square meters (hereinafter collectively referred to as “the instant sub-lease contract”), and thereafter, received KRW 2
Deposit: A sub-lease period of KRW 310,000 (excluding value-added tax, and payment on July 30, 2016) monthly rent of KRW 20 million (Provided, That this contract shall be terminated when the sub-lessee fails to pay two times or more from the date of delivery until July 30, 2016, by increasing the deposit of KRW 30,000 won.
B. On July 2015, the Defendant paid KRW 3410,000 (including value-added tax) for the rent of KRW 3410,000 per month, and paid KRW 110,000 per month for the rent from August to November of the same year.
C. The Plaintiff received management expenses equivalent to the ratio of the size of the instant store from the Defendant among the management expenses imposed on each real estate listed in the separate sheet. The amount that the Plaintiff received excessively from August 8, 2014 to March 2016 due to an error in the size reaches KRW 2,439,400 in total.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-1, Gap evidence 2-2, Gap evidence 8-2 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Of the instant counterclaim, the Defendant received KRW 40 million from the Defendant as compensation for damages, even though the Plaintiff did not have suffered actual damages due to the instant sublease contract, even though the Plaintiff did not have suffered actual damages. This is null and void due to a juristic act contrary to social order or unfair juristic act, and thus, sought the return thereof.
W. Written evidence No. 7