beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On June 7, 2010, the Plaintiff completed business registration regarding clothing retail trade under the trade name “D”.
B. On August 24, 2012, between C and C, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with the term “the first lease agreement” (hereinafter referred to as “the first lease agreement”) with respect to the building on the 103rd floor of Suwon-si E (hereinafter “instant commercial building”) owned by the Defendant, with the term of KRW 30 million, monthly rent of KRW 2.5 million, monthly rent of KRW 2.5 million, and the term of lease from September 13, 2012 to September 12, 2013.
C. The Plaintiff and C together with C
In the store referred to as "D" in the name of "D", it was impossible to pay monthly rent due to business depression. Ultimately, the first lease contract was earlier cancelled on January 7, 2013.
Since then, on March 25, 2013, the Plaintiff, who was in a state of public room with C, operated D’ from March 25, 2013 to November 23, 2013, the first floor of the instant commercial building owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant store”), as the same method as “D’s relocation.” From March 25, 2013 to November 15, 2013, the Defendant was paid the rent for one month or one-half week (3 million won per month, one hundred thousand won per day) without a deposit in the name of C and the Defendant from March 25, 2013 to November 15, 2013.
E. The Defendant was paid the instant store for a period until October 30, 2013, but the rent that occurred thereafter was not paid, and in such circumstances, the Plaintiff and C continued to operate the instant building at the instant store on November 23, 2013, closed the entrance door of the instant building as of November 23, 2013, and delivered the instant store around January 23, 2014.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 8, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. On the ground that the Plaintiff’s decision on the defense prior to the merits was obstructed by the Defendant’s unlawful entrance door closure.