Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal and the claim added in the trial are all dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal and the costs of appeal are added to the trial.
Reasons
1. In the first instance court, the Plaintiff filed a claim for restitution of unjust enrichment of KRW 45 million in relation to the payment of premium, and ② a claim for restitution of unjust enrichment of KRW 15.62 million in relation to the preparation of a multilateral contract, and the first instance court dismissed all of them.
In this regard, the plaintiff appealed only against a claim for return of unjust enrichment related to the payment of the premium, and added a claim for damages due to a tort in the trial, so the subject of the judgment of this court is limited to the claim related to the payment of the premium.
2. Facts of recognition;
A. On May 6, 2007, the Plaintiff: (a) leased from Defendant A on May 6, 2007, Ilyang-gu CAdong 135; (b) as security deposit of KRW 60 million; and (c) monthly rent of KRW 2.8 million; and (d) as security deposit of KRW 136 from Defendant B; and (e) for each of 24 months, respectively.
(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). B.
On May 6, 2009, the term of the instant lease agreement expires, the Plaintiff renewed the said lease agreement with the Defendants, each of KRW 70 million, each of KRW 3.2 million in monthly rent, each of KRW 3.2 million in monthly rent, and each of the period 24 months. On May 6, 2011, the Plaintiff renewed the said lease agreement with the Defendants, each of KRW 80 million in monthly rent, and each of KRW 3.7 million in monthly rent.
C. On January 23, 2013, the Plaintiff: (a) transferred the right of lease, facility, goodwill, etc. under the instant lease agreement to EP, Inc.; (b) KRW 240 million for premium payments.
On March 29, 2013, the Defendants entered into a lease agreement with EP Co., Ltd., and received KRW 45 million from the Plaintiff on the same day.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1-1 to 3, purport of whole pleadings
3. Determination
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendants forced the Defendants to not permit the transfer of the right of lease without giving out some of the premiums paid to the Plaintiff, thereby paying KRW 45 million. The said payment agreement is good.