beta
Text
1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.
The defendant.
Reasons
The Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a lease agreement with respect to the building C in Sejong Special Self-Governing City and the second floor 202 on March 12, 2016, and agreed that KRW 30,000,000 (excluding value-added tax, but excluding value-added tax; the rent shall be free of charge until April 30, 2016; the rent from May 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016 shall be KRW 2,200,000 per month) and from March 12, 2016 to December 31, 2018; the Plaintiff paid KRW 30,000,000 to the Defendant around that time.
[Ground of recognition] The Plaintiff, the Plaintiff’s merchant, the Plaintiff’s assertion of the parties to the written evidence No. 1, and the purport of the entire pleadings, agreed with the Defendant to terminate the said lease contract as of November 30, 2016. Accordingly, the Plaintiff delivered the above 202 to the Defendant on December 31, 2016.
From KRW 30,00,00 to KRW 12,100 to December 2, 2016, the Defendant is entitled to claim for the amount of KRW 17,680,00, which deducts the amount of unpaid value-added tax of KRW 220,00 from KRW 30,00,00 and the amount of delayed payment equivalent to the unpaid rent from August 2016 to KRW 220,00,00, and damages for delay.
The Plaintiff and the Defendant did not agree to terminate the said lease contract verbally around October 2016.
At the time, the Defendant provided that the Plaintiff would return the lease deposit after deducting the rent, etc. unpaid at the end of November 2016. However, this is limited to the condition that other lessees come into existence. Since the said condition has not been fulfilled, the said lease contract was not terminated.
In addition, since the defendant did not receive the above 202 units from the plaintiff, the lease deposit cannot be refunded to the plaintiff.
Judgment
The fact that the plaintiff and the defendant entered into a lease agreement on March 12, 2016 on the above 202 and paid KRW 30,000,000 to the defendant around that time, is identical to the facts based on the above facts, and that the plaintiff paid KRW 30,00,000 to the defendant, respectively, and the evidence Nos. 1 and 2-1.