1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. Basic facts

A. Party 1) The Plaintiff is a company that mainly engages in the manufacture, sale, lease, etc. of reproduction machines and facsimiles. (2) The Defendants, along with C, completed business registration with their trade names from August 3, 2009, and jointly run the instant private teaching institute on the 2 and 3th floor of the building in Jongno-gu Seoul, Jongno-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “instant private teaching institute”). On October 2013, C was withdrawn from the partnership business relationship of the instant private teaching institute and jointly operated the instant private teaching institute.

B. 1) On November 13, 2013, in the name of the Plaintiff and Defendant A, the representative of the instant private teaching institute, the Plaintiff is deemed to be the reproduction of the 'Yice D2265' in the instant private teaching institute (hereinafter “instant reproduction”).

(1) A basic monthly fee of KRW 175,00 (1,00, 1,000, 1450, 1450, 13,100) and 3 years and 6 months. If the amount of the instant driving school exceeds the amount of the basic monthly fee, the instant driving school is entitled to the additional fee of KRW 12,120, 120, 120, 120, 130, and 240,00 per each 31, respectively (hereinafter referred to as the “instant rental agreement”). The instant lease agreement is deemed to be “the instant lease agreement.”

2) The instant lease agreement provides that “A (the Plaintiff refers to the Plaintiff; hereinafter the same shall apply) shall additionally pay B the amount equivalent to 50% of the average monthly rent for the immediately preceding three months by the number of months in the remaining period, without any cause attributable to B (the Plaintiff refers to the Plaintiff; hereinafter the same shall apply)” (Article 12(4)).

C. On July 3, 2015, the Plaintiff’s termination notice and the Plaintiff’s return of the reproduction machine of this case were the peremptory notice to the Defendant A, who is the representative of the instant private teaching institute, to pay the outstanding amount due to the long-term grace period.