beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff:
A. Defendant B received KRW 2,00,000 from the Plaintiff and simultaneously entered in the attached list.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff leased each real estate listed in the separate sheet from D as KRW 15 million, and monthly rent as KRW 1.5 million.
B. From March 10 to March 10, 2016, the period for sub-lease was set as KRW 80,000,000 for sub-lease deposit and KRW 800,000 for monthly rent (hereinafter “rent”) in order to connect each point of (a) part of the attached table No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 4, and 1,000 square meters to Defendant B, each point of (b) the same map No. 3, 4, 5, 6, and 3, such as the 1,00 square meters of the 1,000 square meters of the 1,000-story shop of the 1,000 square meters of the 1,000 square meters of the 1,000-story shop of the 1,000 square meters of the 2,000 won
C. In addition, the Plaintiff sub-leaseed the period of sub-lease of 70 square meters (hereinafter “Defendant C store”) of the 1st floor shop in the part (c) of the 1st floor store connected each point of the items indicated in the attached Form No. 2, 3, 8, 9, and 2 among the real estate listed in the attached Table List to Defendant C, with the amount of KRW 8 million from February 28, 2014 to February 28, 2016, the amount of sub-lease deposit is KRW 9 million, and the monthly rent is KRW 90,000.
(hereinafter referred to as the “each of the stores of this case” is added to the previous stores by the Defendants.
The Defendants received delivery of each of the instant stores from the Plaintiff around the date of each sub-lease contract, and possessed and used it until now. Defendant B paid only the rent until February 10, 2015, and Defendant C paid only the rent until March 28, 2015.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1-3, Gap evidence 2, 3, Eul evidence 1-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. According to the facts as to the determination on the request for extradition, the Defendants did not pay rent for each of the instant stores for more than two consecutive years, and the Plaintiff’s delivery of the copy of the instant complaint to the Defendants on June 16, 2015 is apparent in the record, and each of the instant sub-lease contracts was lawfully terminated and terminated around June 16, 2015.
Therefore, it is true.