beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On October 24, 201, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a lease agreement with respect to the lease Articles 3 and 205 of Songpa-gu Seoul (hereinafter “instant lease”) owned by the Defendant, with a deposit of KRW 10 million, monthly rent of KRW 700,000,000, and the period from November 2, 201 to November 1, 2012. On October 23, 2012, the Plaintiff and the Defendant extended the period from November 2, 2012 to November 1, 2013 (hereinafter “instant lease”). However, the first contract (Evidence 1), stating that the lessee shall bear brokerage fees when the contract is terminated due to the expiration of the contract or the automatic extension of the contract, and on the other hand, stating that the lessee may demand the termination of the contract before the expiration of the contract as a special agreement to the effect that the lessee would have no record of the contract before the expiration of the contract.
B. The lease of this case was implicitly renewed after the expiration of the term, and the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of his intention to terminate the lease of this case on or around April 7, 2014.
C. On May 26, 2014, the Defendant leased the instant leased object to E as the broker of the D Licensed Real Estate Agent Office for KRW 10 million, KRW 600,000 per month, and the period from May 27, 2014 to May 26, 2015, and paid KRW 400,000 as brokerage commission to the said brokerage office.
On May 27, 2014, the Plaintiff and the Defendant settled accounts at the real estate brokerage office of this case upon the termination of the lease of this case. The Defendant paid to the Plaintiff a settlement statement (Evidence 2) that deducts the Plaintiff from the deposit the total of KRW 230,420, gas costs, KRW 9,210, monthly rent of KRW 560,00, repair costs of KRW 41,000, and KRW 1,240,630, the early termination of the lease period of KRW 1,240,000 (Evidence 2). The Plaintiff paid KRW 8,759,370, either KRW 10,000,000, KRW 240,630 on the leased property of this case.