beta
Text
1. The part of the judgment of the first instance against the Defendants shall be revoked.
2. The plaintiff's defendants who fall under the above revocation part.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On March 9, 2010, Defendant B leased the lease period of No. 124.02 square meters (hereinafter “instant 109”) of the Gyeyang-gu Seoul E First Floor (hereinafter “instant building”) from Hyundai Switzerland Mutual Savings Bank from April 10, 201 to September 30, 201, by setting the lease period from April 10, 201 to September 30, 201, Defendant B leased the instant building No. 110 and 128.7 square meters (hereinafter “instant 110 square meters”) from Hyundai Switzerland Mutual Savings Bank from March 9, 2010 to March 8, 2012.
B. Defendant C, the husband of Defendant B, added the instant Nos. 109 and 110 to use it as a single party funeral business (Defendant C subleaseed to F on December 15, 2010, and F concluded a lease agreement with the said mutual savings bank as to the said No. 110 at the same time) and delivered it to D upon the expiration of the lease term of the said No. 109. The F installed partitions on the boundary line of the instant No. 109 and 110 and operated the party funeral business only of the instant No. 110.
C. After October 201, the Plaintiff leased the instant No. 109 from D and used it as a restaurant business site.
[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 2, 4, Eul evidence 3 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination as to the cause of action
A. (1) The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) Plaintiff (the former lessee of the instant case No. 109) was obligated to restore the original state when the lease term expires and the Defendant B, the lessee of the instant case, was delivered on the leased lease No. 109. As the Plaintiff appears to have been transferred on the leased lease No. 109, the 110 of the instant case was used as a billiard, but the 109 pages were not arranged, and thus, it is impossible to operate a restaurant business. The Plaintiff continued construction with a promise to pay KRW 3 million for the construction cost of the 109 pages from the Defendant C, and paid KRW 3 million to the Plaintiff on behalf of the Plaintiff, and the Defendants also paid KRW 100,000 for the key repair cost.