beta
Text
1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.
2. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 9,348,00 as well as its full payment from May 1, 2010.
Reasons
1. The following facts may be acknowledged in full view of the facts and the whole purport of the arguments and entries in Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 5, unless there is a dispute between the parties or in full view of the following facts:
The Plaintiff’s status as the Plaintiff entered into a comprehensive implementation contract with the Faupup Project Association (hereinafter “instant association”) which promoted the new construction project of E commercial buildings on the ground and underground of 4,144.3 square meters of land in Seoul, Jung-gu, Seoul, Seoul (hereinafter “instant commercial buildings”), which is a site for the Gu B market and C market, around September 12, 2002, and entered into a lease-sale contract for the instant commercial buildings.
B. On August 11, 2008, the Plaintiff acquired the right to lease from the sectional owners of the instant commercial building and entered into a lease agreement with G as to the lease price of KRW 87,000,00 (excluding value-added tax) of the fourth floor of the instant commercial building, as shown in the attached list, (i) the Plaintiff acquired the right to lease from the sectional owners of the instant commercial building, and entered into the lease agreement with G as to the lease price of KRW 87,00,00 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).
Things G transferred the contractual status under the instant lease agreement to the Defendant on April 30, 2009.
C. (1) Around February 2010, the Defendant won the 4th floor 127 shop (hereinafter “instant store”) from the shop drawing according to the instant lease contract. While the exclusive use area of the instant store was maintained at 3.90 square meters, the leased area including this was increased to 16.43 square meters.
B. On March 19, 2010, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the details of the settlement and the amount of the account payable until April 30, 2010, when the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the settlement according to the exclusive use area (based on 3.9 square meters) (based on 3.9 square meters).