beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of this court’s judgment citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, except for the addition of the following “2. Additional Judgment” as to the assertion that the Plaintiff emphasizes in this court, and thus, the same is acceptable pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
(The grounds for appeal by the Plaintiff do not differ significantly from the allegations in the first instance trial, and even considering the evidence submitted additionally to this court, it is deemed legitimate to find facts in the first instance court and make a judgment). 2. The Plaintiff asserts that even if the store in this case was leased in installments, the premium for the remainder of the non-leased part shall also be guaranteed, but the Defendant deprived of the Plaintiff’s opportunity to recover the premium by leasing the remainder of the non-leased part and not receiving the premium.
However, in full view of the above facts and evidence, the following circumstances, namely, ① the instant lease agreement was terminated upon the Plaintiff’s request before the expiration of the lease term, and accordingly, the Plaintiff had a burden of paying KRW 2.2 million monthly rent to the Defendant until the Plaintiff sought a new lessee. ② During that period, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement on the part of the instant store with the new lessee I and paid the Plaintiff the said premium in full, and the Plaintiff received the said premium without any objection and delivered the instant store to the Defendant, and thereafter, the lease relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant was substantially terminated. ③ The Plaintiff asserted that “The entire store was KRW 60 million or KRW 160 million,000,000,000,000 won, and the remainder of the leased portion was KRW 5,000,000,000,000,0000,000 won. However, there is no objective evidence to acknowledge the above, and rather, the witness F of the first instance trial demanded the market price compared to the Plaintiff.
“.......”