beta
Text
1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) is simultaneously paid KRW 40 million from the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).
Reasons
1. On August 17, 2011, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant on the second floor (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) among the real estate listed in the attached list, with the lease deposit of KRW 40 million, rent of KRW 2 million, management fee of KRW 200,000,000, and the term of lease from September 9, 201 to October 19, 2013 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”), and operated a coffee store at the instant store.
Since then, while the instant lease agreement was implicitly renewed, the Plaintiff maintained the lease agreement under the same conditions as the previous lease agreement on September 8, 2015, but the term of lease was 12 months from September 9, 2015 to September 9, 2016.
On May 26, 2016, the Plaintiff sent a content-certified mail to the effect that the Defendant did not intend to extend the instant lease agreement and that the instant lease agreement was terminated on September 9, 2016, requesting the Defendant to surrender the instant store, and the said content-certified mail reached the Defendant around that time.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of whole pleadings
2. According to the facts of the judgment on the Plaintiff’s main claim, the instant lease agreement was terminated on September 9, 2016, and thus, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obliged to deliver the instant store to the Plaintiff at the same time with the Plaintiff’s repayment of KRW 40 million from the Plaintiff, and with the Plaintiff’s restoration upon the termination of the instant lease agreement.
3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion and counterclaim
A. The summary of the claim 1 for the reimbursement of beneficial costs is that the Defendant implemented installation works for electric voltages worth KRW 2,252,00 and air conditioners worth KRW 3,270,000 in the store of this case, and disbursed a total of KRW 5,522,00,000. Thus, the Defendant cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s claim for the payment before receiving the payment. Moreover, the Defendant’s counterclaim made reimbursement of the above beneficial costs to the Plaintiff.