beta
Text
1. All appeals against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the counterclaim by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Judgment on the ground for appeal by the plaintiff
A. As to the assertion regarding the illegality of the demand for additional rent payment and the timing of the payment of rent, ① the instant lease agreement (Evidence A No. 3-1) provides convenience and benefits for the Plaintiff’s business preparation and the Defendant to exclude the period of business preparation that the Plaintiff and the Defendant consulted with from the calculation period of rent (Article 4(2)). In a case where the Defendant recognized that there are justifiable grounds or unavoidable reasons, the Plaintiff and the Defendant left room for re-contracts in preparation for changes in the circumstances and circumstances, by mutual agreement even before the expiration of the lease term, on the ground that the terms and conditions of the contract may be modified or modified
When the Plaintiff entered into the instant lease contract on March 18, 2014, however, when the Plaintiff obtained the first permission to change the use of the leased object according to the Plaintiff’s leased purpose, it is October 16, 2014.
(A) Accordingly, the Plaintiff and the Defendant changed the lease contract from October 16, 2014 to February 23, 2015, where the permission for change of use was issued on December 26, 2014, and the lease term from February 24, 2015 to February 23, 2020.
(No. 4-2, 3). Ultimately, after entering into a lease agreement, the period of business preparation has been given to the Plaintiff as close as one year.
② On October 23, 2014, after permission for change of use was granted, the Plaintiff submitted a construction plan list to the Defendant stating that “A building was marked to the first floor and second floor under the lease agreement, which would not interfere with open opening on February 2, 2015, and was deemed to be a ground floor externally, but, in the process of change of use, it was judged as a facility (base) in need of smoke-proof equipment in order to install smoke-proof equipment inevitably, the Plaintiff demanded that the Defendant bear the cost of design, supervision, and construction.”
(B) No. 4-1. In this schedule of work plan, the date of commencement on February 24, 2015 shall be February 20, 2015, and shall be until February 20, 2015.