beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal and the conjunctive claim added by this court are all dismissed.
2. After an appeal is filed.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On June 18, 1996, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant on three-story, Nam-gu, Incheon Metropolitan City, on the three-story C’s residential facilities of the steel farm bean, slive slive slive lub roof, and the housing 159,60 square meters, 113.05 square meters on one-story, 113.05 square meters on two-story, 109.93 square meters on three-story, and 109.93 square meters on three-story. 2) The Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant on the three-story building on the 159.60 square meters on the 159.60 square meters on one-story, 113.05 square meters on one-story, 109.93 square meters on two-story (hereinafter “instant commercial building”). On June 4, 2013, the Plaintiff took over the above lease agreement and run a household and retail business in this case as “F.”
B. (1) On January 15, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant and the instant commercial building into a lease agreement with the amount of KRW 90,000,000 per annum, KRW 5,000 per month of rent (excluding value-added tax on January 15, 201), and the term of lease from January 15, 2015 to January 15, 2015 (Evidence A No. 3 and Evidence B No. 1). However, it appears to be a clerical error, while the term of lease agreement is written from January 15, 2014 to January 15, 2019 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).
(2) On the other hand, the Plaintiff did not pay a rent under the instant lease agreement to the Defendant, as long as it paid a rent to the Defendant on January 2017.
C. On March 14, 2018, the Plaintiff sent the content certification of termination of the contract to the Defendant: (a) notified the Defendant of the termination of the contract for the first time 2017 because it was no longer possible for the Plaintiff to operate the business due to defects, such as the leakage of the instant commercial building; (b) the Defendant continued to operate the instant commercial building on December 31, 2017 because it did not refund the lease deposit and continued to operate the business; (c) and (d) restored the instant commercial building to its original state on or before December 31, 2017. As the termination of the instant lease agreement became effective as of December 31, 2017, the Plaintiff did not pay from January 2017.