beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to pay below shall be revoked.
2...
Reasons
1. The facts subsequent to the facts are either in dispute between the parties or in accordance with Gap evidence No. 1, Gap evidence No. 9-1, Gap evidence No. 10, 11, and the whole purport of the pleadings.
A. F is the owner of 48.86 square meters underground of the building located in Busan-gu G (hereinafter “instant store”), and the Plaintiff is the manager of the said building.
Defendant E is a person who operates “H” with Defendant D’s funds, and Defendant B is a partner of Defendant D, and Defendant C is the wife of Defendant D.
B. Around March 16, 2010, I leased a 48.86m2 under the ground of the building located in Busan-gu G (hereinafter “instant store”) from F and operated “H” from March 16, 2010.
Defendant E had been running the instant store with the deposit amount of KRW 7 million and KRW 1,900,000 per month.
C. On May 19, 2012, F: (a) the instant store was leased to Defendant B with the lease deposit of KRW 13 million (in the event of a contract, the remainder of KRW 5 million was paid on May 21, 2012), KRW 130,000 per month (payment on May 21, 201), and the lease period from July 21, 2012 to May 21, 2014.
Defendant D remitted the down payment of KRW 5 million to F on the date of the conclusion of the lease agreement, and on May 21, 2012, the date of the conclusion of the lease agreement, Defendant D paid the remainder of KRW 8 million to the Plaintiff as a check.
E. Defendant E is running business in the instant building up to now.
2. Determination
A. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants agreed to jointly pay KRW 1.5 million to the Plaintiff in return for assisting the Plaintiff to lease the instant store from F and receive delivery from the former lessee I.
The facts that there was an agreement as alleged by the Plaintiff are either not disputed between the Plaintiff and the Defendants, or acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of entry and pleading in the evidence No. 5, and the facts that Defendant E currently runs its business after renting the store of this case.