beta
Text
1. Of the first floor of the building on the ground stated in the attached Form 1, the Defendant each indicated in the attached Form 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 1.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On November 28, 2013, the Plaintiff: (a) leased the lease term of part 330.57 square meters in the ship (hereinafter “instant building”) connected each point of the attached Form 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 1 among the first floor on the ground of the building indicated in the attached Form, to the Defendant, from December 1, 2013 to November 30, 2015; (b) lease deposit amount of KRW 80,00,000 (excluding value-added tax); and (c) management expenses of KRW 70,00,000 (excluding value-added tax).
B. In entering into the instant lease agreement, the Plaintiff and the Defendant: (a) substitute for the payment of the lease deposit, KRW 32,00,000 with the lease deposit to be returned to Nonparty C, who are the former lessee; (b) paid KRW 20,000 in the first intermediate payment on December 20, 2013; and (c) paid KRW 14,00,000 in the second intermediate payment on March 31, 2014; and (d) agreed to pay KRW 14,00,000 in the remainder on May 31, 2014; and (b) the Defendant breached the instant lease agreement without the peremptory notice to the Defendant (Article 22 of the lease agreement); (c) the Plaintiff may terminate the instant lease agreement without the peremptory notice to the Defendant if the Defendant fails to perform the payment of the said intermediate payment once, the instant lease agreement is automatically terminated; and (d) the Defendant agreed to deliver the instant building to the Defendant.
C. However, the Defendant did not pay the second intermediate payment to the Plaintiff on the agreed date, and paid only KRW 5,000,000 on March 28, 2015, and did not pay any balance on the agreed date.
On August 5, 2016, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the termination of the instant lease agreement, inasmuch as the instant lease agreement was terminated pursuant to the automatic termination clause, as it did not perform the obligation of the Defendant to pay the lease deposit under the instant lease agreement.
E. Meanwhile, around October 7, 2016, the Plaintiff’s lease contract of this case expired on November 30, 2015, and even if it was implicitly renewed on domestic affairs, it was concluded on November 30, 2016.