beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
. There is no evidence that the Plaintiff bears the above duty of restitution.
Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit, since the plaintiff failed to fulfill his duty to restore to the original state due to its own cause and caused damage to the defendant.
2) As to the assertion on the liability to pay consolation money, the Plaintiff asserted that he/she should notify the termination of the contract three months prior to the lease protection law, but at his/her discretion, he/she made a unilateral notification to the Defendant’s family members to the lower police officer on December 2017.
The Plaintiff, through deception and intimidation, deprived of the Defendant’s right to lease until March 2018, and due to this reason, the Defendant’s spouse suffered from both economic losses, such as monthly rent, and thus, the Plaintiff should pay a solatium of KRW 15,00,000 to the Defendant.
B) The instant lease agreement was in the state that the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act is not applicable, as the conversion deposit was KRW 4.3 million (=the monthly rent of KRW 3.8 million) (Article 2(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act, which was amended by Presidential Decree No. 26637, Nov. 13, 2015; and was in effect on November 14, 2015, the amount of KRW 400,000 in Seoul Special Metropolitan City.
(3) The term of lease stipulated in Paragraph (3) of the real estate lease agreement (i.e., from January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2015) (i.e., “A” 1-1, 15) provides that “a lessee shall request a lessor to re-contract at least three months before the expiration date of the contract.” However, there is no such provision in the instant lease agreement (i.e., “A and B 1-2). The Plaintiff was unfairly deprived of the Defendant’s right to lease and there is insufficient evidence to prove that the Defendant suffered loss (i.e., the purport of the entire pleadings and the arguments), but the Plaintiff paid the instant real estate amounting to KRW 3.8 million as the monthly rent on December 31, 2017, to the Defendant on December 31, 2017.
(b)..