beta
Text
1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance is revoked.
2. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant is dismissed.
3...
Reasons
1. The Plaintiff’s assertion on December 21, 2012: (a) the Defendant leased the instant store from the Plaintiff to December 20, 2012, KRW 40,000 (payment of KRW 4,00,000 on the lease deposit; and (b) the remainder of KRW 36,00,000 on January 30, 2013; and (c) the monthly rent of KRW 1,30,000 (in addition to the value-added tax, the late payment penalty of KRW 5,00 on the delayed payment period shall be added); (d) monthly management expenses of KRW 195,00 (in addition to the value-added tax and the late payment period of KRW 5,00), period from December 21, 201 to December 20, 2014 (hereinafter “the instant lease agreement”); and (e) leased the instant store to B with the Plaintiff’s consent immediately after concluding the instant lease agreement.
However, the Defendant did not pay the remainder of the lease deposit to the Plaintiff KRW 36,00,000, and monthly rent and monthly management expenses from August 2014, and the Plaintiff terminated the instant lease agreement on the ground that the rent was overdue on December 23, 2014.
Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant store to the Plaintiff, and pay the amount calculated by deducting KRW 4,00,000 from the sum of the rent and management expenses in arrears from KRW 17,099,000 to June 10, 2015, the remainder of KRW 13,09,000 and the total of KRW 1,60,000 from June 11, 2015 to the completion date of delivery of the instant store.
2. First of all, we examine whether the instant lease contract was concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.
According to the plaintiff's above argument, Gap evidence Nos. 2 (a lease contract) stated the name of the defendant in the tenant column, and affixed the seal of the defendant on that side. The authenticity is not recognized since there is no evidence to prove that the above seal is based on the seal of the defendant. The defendant asserted that Eul prepared Eul evidence No. 2 by stealing the defendant's name, and filed a criminal complaint against Eul as a crime of forging and uttering of private documents, etc., it can be used as evidence.