beta
Text
1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.
A. Paragraph 2 of the attached Table simultaneously with receiving KRW 20,000,000 from the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is an unincorporated association and is the owner of the instant real estate.
B. On December 15, 2013, C, the Plaintiff’s representative, entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) to lease the instant building by setting the deposit deposit amount of KRW 20 million, monthly rent of KRW 50,000, monthly rent of KRW 500,000, monthly rent of KRW 15, and period of lease of KRW 24 months from December 15, 2013 (hereinafter “the instant lease agreement”).
C. Article 5 of the instant lease agreement provides that “The lessee may remodel or alter the building with the approval of the lessor, but before the date of conversion of real estate, shall make the cost of repairing the building of this case at the lessee’s expense.” Article 2 of the instant lease agreement provides that the Defendant shall bear the cost of repairing the building of this case during the lease period if the cost is not more than 1.5 million won, and the Plaintiff shall bear the cost if the cost is more than 1.5 million won.
The Defendant paid deposit of KRW 20 million to the Plaintiff, and received delivery from the Plaintiff of the instant building from the Plaintiff, and occupied and used the instant building until the date of the closing of argument.
E. On January 1, 2016, after the expiration of the lease term of the instant lease agreement, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with a deposit of KRW 20 million, KRW 500,000 per month, KRW 500,000 per month, the due date of the rent, and KRW 15,00 per month from January 1, 2016, and three months from January 1, 2016. Since the instant lease agreement is based on the instant lease agreement, for which the period expires on December 15, 2015, the Defendant temporarily set the instant building at the end of March 2016 (the date of commencing the reconstruction of the instant building). Therefore, the Defendant did not set the instant building in accordance with the Plaintiff’s special agreement.