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
1. Basic facts
A. On December 11, 1999, the Defendant concluded a sub-lease contract with the lessee D on the condition that the first floor shop of Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan E (hereinafter referred to as the “instant building”) among the buildings located in Seongbuk-gu (hereinafter referred to as the “instant building,” and the said store is set at 150 million won for sublease deposit and 1.8 million won for monthly rent, and operated a cosmetic store at the instant store thereafter.
B. Meanwhile, on October 29, 2008, F, the owner of the instant store, entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant, setting the lease deposit of KRW 150 million with respect to 44 square meters among the instant store, as between October 29, 2008, and the monthly rent of KRW 500,000,000 from October 28, 2008 to October 28, 2013. On the same day, F, the owner of the instant store, entered into the lease agreement with the Defendant’s wife by setting the lease deposit of KRW 15.02 square meters among the instant store from October 29, 2008 to October 28, 2013.
However, the terms and conditions of each of the above lease agreements between F and the Defendant and the Defendant’s wife G state that “a contract is concluded on condition that the lease deposit is taken over due to the rescission of the sub-lease agreement with the former lessee D, and an additional tax and income tax on the lease deposit shall be borne by the lessee.”
(hereinafter referred to as the above special agreement is referred to as the “instant agreement”).
After the death of F, the Plaintiff solely succeeded to the instant store. On December 17, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant, setting the lease deposit of KRW 250 million with respect to the instant store, monthly rent of KRW 4,400,000,000 from January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2018 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).
The store of this case was disposed of by public sale and transferred ownership to a third party on August 25, 2016, and the sum of the rent that the Defendant did not pay by August 24, 2016 is the sum.