beta
Text
1.The judgment of the first instance court, including any reductions and claims added by this Court, shall be modified as follows:
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Defendants are co-owners of the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government F Ground Buildings.
B. On July 17, 2015, the Plaintiff leased the entire first floor of the above building (hereinafter “instant building”) from the Defendants as KRW 70,00,000, monthly rent of KRW 6,500,000 (the last day of each month of payment, separate value-added tax), and the period from July 24, 2015 to July 23, 2017, and operated a health club in the name of “G” from the instant building by taking over health facilities from the former lessee.
C. Since November 2015, the Plaintiff: (a) around November 2015 and around January 2016, the repair work was performed at each Plaintiff’s expense; and (b) from February 2016, the leakage occurred again; (c) the Plaintiff notified IMC Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “management company”) and the Defendants, a controlled entity of the instant real estate, of the leakage in the instant building over several occasions; and (d) requested the remuneration therefor; (c) however, the management company and the Defendants designated the lessee of the first floor restaurant as the responsible person, and did not take any measures to withdraw the measure.
On April 25, 2016, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendants a certificate of the content that the instant lease agreement is automatically terminated due to the Defendants’ nonperformance of obligations on April 26, 2016, stating, “In the event that the repair work is not ordered within one week from the date of receipt of this document to enable the use of the instant building in compliance with the operation of the health club, which is the object of lease, as the cumulative problem is serious, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendants a certificate of the content that “if the repair work is not ordered within one week from the date of receipt of the document, the repair work will be automatically terminated due to the Defendants’ nonperformance of obligations.” This reached the Defendants around April 26, 2016.
E. On May 9, 2016, the Plaintiff delivered the instant building to the Defendants.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, each entry and video of Gap evidence 1 to 12 (including a serial number) and witness of the first instance trial, respectively.