beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the amount ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.
Reasons
1. The facts subsequent to the facts do not conflict between the parties, or are found to be based on the whole purport of the pleadings in the entries or images of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, evidence Nos. 5-1 through 11, evidence Nos. 6, evidence Nos. 10-1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 6, and evidence Nos. 8. 7-1, and part of evidence No. 6 are insufficient to reverse the facts.
On July 20, 2009, the Plaintiff leased from the Defendant the first floor (hereinafter referred to as “instant store”) among the buildings on the ground C of Busan Northern-gu, Busan-gu, as security deposit of KRW 26 million, monthly rent of KRW 275,000 (including value-added tax), and the period of KRW 24 months.
(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). B.
On June 7, 2012, while the lease of this case was renewed, the Plaintiff accepted the instant store (hereinafter “the first repair”) by bringing KRW 1.3 million into the instant store.
In addition, the Plaintiff, upon the Defendant’s request, accepted the instant store from April 7, 2013 to April 18, 2013 (hereinafter “the second repair”).
C. Meanwhile, on April 5, 2013, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a new lease agreement by changing the name of the lessee under the instant lease agreement into the Plaintiff’s husband D, deposit KRW 20 million, monthly rent of KRW 350,000,000, and agreed to continue to maintain the instant lease agreement. The Plaintiff also recognized that the Plaintiff decided to pay KRW 26 million, out of the previous lease deposit paid, as a deposit for a new lease agreement. Unlike the above facts, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the previous lease agreement was terminated due to the termination of agreement between the Defendant and the Defendant on April 5, 2013 and that a separate lease agreement was concluded between the Defendant and D cannot be deemed to have been completed due to the agreement in lieu of the payment of deposit deposit, and thus, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have paid KRW 20,000,000 to the Defendant’s Plaintiff only within the remainder of the deposit amount of KRW 6 million.