beta
Text
The defendant's KRW 1,060,925 for each of the plaintiffs and its 5% per annum from July 10, 2019 to July 9, 2020.
Reasons
Basic Facts
A. On May 15, 2017, the Plaintiffs entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant on a two-year period from May 19, 2017 to May 18, 2019 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with regard to D and E accommodation facilities (Fel; hereinafter “instant building”) of Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Gangseo-gu, Seoul, with a deposit of KRW 50 million, monthly rent of KRW 20 million, and the lease term of KRW 20 million from May 19, 2017 to May 18, 2019. At that time, the Plaintiffs operated the franchise by delivery of the instant building.
B. On April 9, 2019, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that the instant lease contract would no longer be renewed upon the termination of May 18, 2019, by content-certified mail, and that the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of its intention of refusal to renew the contract.
C. On April 30, 2019, the Plaintiff entered into a new lease agreement with G by setting a deposit of KRW 350 million with respect to the instant building, KRW 17.5 million per month, and the lease term from May 18, 2019 to May 17, 2021.
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap's 1 through 4, the purport of whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The summary of the claim 1) The Defendant expressed his/her intention to refuse to renew the instant lease agreement and entered into a lease agreement with G with a new lessee. G entered into a lease agreement after hearing that there is no premium for the instant lease agreement and refused to pay the premium to the Plaintiffs. The Defendant’s act is deemed to interfere with the Plaintiffs’ opportunity to recover the premium for the instant lease agreement. As such, the Defendant is liable to compensate for damages suffered by the Plaintiffs pursuant to Article 10-4(3) of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act and the amount of KRW 30 million paid by the initial Plaintiffs to the Defendant. 2) The Defendant returned the amount of KRW 50 million to the Plaintiffs after the termination of the instant lease agreement, and deducted KRW 763,420 as H equipment rent, but the Plaintiffs used the I communication network, and thus there is no reason to deduct the said amount.
In addition, the plaintiffs are also the defendant.