beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. A. On July 30, 2008, the Plaintiff leased a commercial building (hereinafter “instant restaurant”) listed in the attached Table 1 list to the Defendant as of July 30, 2010, setting the lease deposit of KRW 10 million, monthly rent of KRW 800,000 (payment on July 5, 2010), and the lease term of the lease. The Defendant had operated a restaurant with the name of “C” after receiving delivery of the instant restaurant from around that time.
(2) Since then, the above lease contract was renewed and maintained, around March 1, 2016, and was finally renewed as of KRW 10 million, monthly rent of KRW 1.5 million (which shall be paid on August 30, 201, but shall be reduced by KRW 1.3 million until August 30, 2016, and KRW 1.3 million and value-added tax separate) and the lease period from March 1, 2016 to March 1, 202.
B. The Defendant’s default of rent (1) on the other hand, in order to lower the tax by appropriating the rent revenue low, the Plaintiff prepared a false lease agreement in which the monthly rent is KRW 400,000 to the Defendant, and requested the Defendant to pay the monthly rent in two separate accounts in line with the false lease agreement. The Defendant agreed to receive a reduction in the amount of value-added tax, and paid the monthly rent by dividing it into two accounts in the name of the Plaintiff in the name of the Plaintiff.
(2) As of February 28, 2018, the Defendant had difficulty in paying the monthly rent more than 30 days after the business depression of the instant restaurant, and repeated the arrears of the rent. As of February 28, 2018, the Defendant was in arrears of the rent for the second term (the rent from January 1, 2018 to February 28, 2018).
As to this, the Plaintiff led to an error at the time of filing the instant lawsuit, but the actual amount of the rent in arrears by the Defendant as of February 28, 2018 is three-years from December 1, 2017 to February 28, 2018. As such, the Plaintiff asserted that the confession was against the truth, and that it was obvious that it was based on mistake. However, the requirements for cancelling the confession were satisfied.