beta
Text
1. All claims filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and the Defendant are dismissed.
2...
Reasons
1. The following facts are acknowledged according to each of the statements in Gap's evidence Nos. 1 to 3, 9, 11, 14, Eul's evidence Nos. 1 to 8, 11 to 13, and 17 (including each number), witness D's testimony and the whole purport of oral argument:
A. On August 21, 2013, Defendant B leased from the Plaintiff on a set of two-storys, which are Class II neighborhood living facilities (general restaurants), among the land buildings in Suwon-gu, Busan, Suwon-gu, with a deposit of KRW 50 million, monthly rent of KRW 500,000,000, and period of KRW 550,000,000, and operated a restaurant under the trade name “G” with Defendant F, his mother.
(hereinafter referred to as “the lease of this case”) B.
The 1st floor of the building is originally indicated in the attached Form 1, with three retail stores with a total area of 91.21 square meters and four parking lots, and the approval for use was obtained on July 15, 2013. The Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s husband H, a co-owner of the building, obtained the approval for use of the building as above, and one of the said three stores was directly leased to others, and the remainder two installed a water pipe in the part approved for use as a parking lot for active fish wholesale business, while being used for active fish wholesale business.
C. As can be seen, the Defendants demanded that the Plaintiff secure a parking lot in the parking lot as well as there is an obstacle to the restaurant business. The Plaintiff endeavored to remove the boundaries, etc. of trees and India between the public land and the road and to create access roads in order to provide the Defendant’s business site as a parking lot. However, the Defendants received an order from the Suwon-gu Busan Metropolitan City Office to restore the road to its original state until December 26, 2013 with respect to the occupation of the road and the unauthorized alteration of the road facilities from the public land owner, and thus, the public land cannot be used as a parking lot.
On January 28, 2014, Defendant B terminated the lease contract because it is impossible to achieve the purpose of the lease due to the lack of parking facilities.