beta
Text
1. The defendant's decision against the plaintiff is rendered by the Daegu District Court of the Republic of Korea (Seoul District Court of Law No. 2017Gaso566, Sept. 5, 2017).
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On April 2, 2014, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with the Plaintiff and the Defendant and completed the said agreement. On April 2, 2014, part of the first floor store from the Plaintiff on the ground C, Ulsan-gun, Seoul (hereinafter “instant store”).
3,00,000 won, monthly rent of KRW 300,000,000, and the lease term of KRW 2,000,000 (hereinafter “instant lease”).
(2) Around that time, the Plaintiff paid the foregoing lease deposit to the Plaintiff. (2) The instant lease agreement was explicitly renewed on April 1, 2016 and terminated on March 1, 2017. From April 1, 2017, the Defendant occupied the instant store without paying the Plaintiff the car in accordance with the instant lease agreement and operated the clothes shop like the previous one.
B. During the process of a prior civil lawsuit between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking payment of the lease deposit amounting to KRW 3 million by the Daegu District Court, the Seoul District Court Decision 2017Gau566, which was the Seoul District Court’s High Court’s Decision 2017Gau566, for a beneficial cost, the Defendant’s claim for reimbursement of damages due to unlawful acts, such as the cost of electric installations and the distribution of design and the Plaintiff’s insult. On September 5, 2017, the above court rendered a final judgment of the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s appeal to the effect that “the Plaintiff received the instant store from the Defendant,” and at the same time, the Plaintiff did not pay the remainder of money calculated by deducting the amount calculated by the Defendant’s delayed payment from the lease deposit amounting to KRW 3 million from April 1, 2017 to the completion of delivery of the instant store (the Defendant’s claim for reimbursement of beneficial expenses and the claim for damages due to unlawful acts against the Plaintiff was dismissed.”
C. After the previous judgment became final and conclusive, the previous judgment was rendered as seen above.