1. The defendant 45,479,677 won and its weight to the plaintiff
A. From May 15, 2014 to May 1, 2015, for KRW 770,000.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On April 2, 2010, the Plaintiff: (a) leased 12,600,000, monthly rent of KRW 1,614,000 to Songpa-gu Seoul 1029 (hereinafter “instant store”); and (b) changed the monthly rent of KRW 1,260,000 on May 1, 2012 to KRW 1,260,000; and (c) renewed the said lease agreement.
(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). B.
After the Plaintiff leased the instant store as above on July 20, 201, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a lease agreement with the said store as follows: (a) KRW 28,000,000, and monthly rent (additional rent separate); (b) the rent shall be calculated on a monthly basis; (c) the rent shall be paid in cash on the 15th of each following month; and (d) the overdue interest rate shall be 14% per annum.
(hereinafter referred to as “instant sublease contract”): 2.8 million won per month (one year from the date of commencement of business): 2.8 million won per month: 3.5 million won per month: 4 million won per month; 4.5 million won per month; 4.5 million won per month;
C. According to the instant sub-lease contract, the contract is terminated in a case where the Plaintiff fails to acquire the ownership of the store of this case or fails to maintain the rights such as the right of lease.
After commencing business on March 23, 2012, the Defendant paid the monthly rent of KRW 3080,000 for April 2014 as stipulated in the instant sub-lease contract to the Plaintiff, and did not pay the remainder of the rent and the subsequent rent until now.
E. On the other hand, on April 15, 2015, the Plaintiff terminated the instant lease agreement with EP on the other hand.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the facts of the above recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff the amount stated in Paragraph (1) of this Article, which is the unpaid amount, out of the rent under the sublease contract of this case.
On the other hand, the defendant claims to reduce the rent due to the aggravation of economic conditions, such as the reduction of sales after the contract of the sub-lease in this case.