beta
Text
1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) paid KRW 210,00 to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) for KRW 210,00 and for this, from September 15, 2015 to June 21, 2016.
Reasons
A principal lawsuit and counterclaim shall also be deemed a principal lawsuit and counterclaim.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff as a party is a person who was leased from the Defendant the head of the office, the head of the office, the office, and the office-side one square meter (hereinafter “the head of the office of this case”) among the real estate listed in the attached Table owned by the Defendant as indicated in the attached Table owned by the Defendant. The Defendant is a person who operated the office of the Deputy Director of the office of this case except the Deputy Director of the office of this case among the real estate listed in the attached Table list.
B. On March 28, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant for the lease deposit of KRW 3,00,000, KRW 500,000 per month (payment on March 28, 201), and the lease term from March 28, 2014 to March 27, 2016 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). Article 4 of the instant lease agreement provides that “The lessor may terminate the instant lease agreement without delay if the lessee exceeds the rent of KRW 2,00,00 per month, or violates Article 3.”
C. After the conclusion of the instant lease agreement, the Plaintiff paid KRW 3,00,000 to the Defendant, and the Plaintiff was transferred to the third Deputy Director from the Defendant to the third Deputy Director from the third Deputy Director.
The Plaintiff paid 6,00,000 won in total to the Defendant from April 2014 (from March 28, 2014 to April 27, 2014) to March 2015 (from February 28, 2015 to March 27, 2015) and did not pay the rent from April 2015.
E. On August 6, 2015, the Plaintiff notified the termination of the instant lease agreement and the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit to the Defendant on August 6, 2015, which was possessed by the Plaintiff during the instant lease period, the three vice-directorss of the instant case continued to operate the business in the Jeju Vice-General, despite being unable to operate the business without the Plaintiff’s permission or consent.