beta
Text
1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part shall be dismissed.
Reasons
1. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. 1) On May 31, 2012, the Plaintiff is a commercial building located in Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C (hereinafter “instant commercial building”).
The term of the D Management Body and the term of the contract, comprised of sectional owners, are determined from June 1, 2012 to May 31, 2014, and outsourced management and operation contract (hereinafter “instant outsourced management contract”).
2) From September 1, 2012, the Plaintiff concluded a sub-lease contract (hereinafter “sub-lease contract”) with the Defendant and the instant store No. 84 (hereinafter “instant store”) by setting the contract period from the sectional owners of the instant stores from the first to fourth above the ground among the instant commercial buildings by one year. On September 1, 2012, the Plaintiff concluded a sub-lease contract with the Defendant and the instant store No. 6,950,00, monthly rent of KRW 695,00 (the value-added tax is separate, and the rent of KRW 10% is the last day of each month) and from September 1, 2012 to August 31, 2013.
3) Around that time, the Defendant paid KRW 6,950,000 to the Plaintiff for the sublease deposit of this case and received delivery of the instant store and occupies it until the closure of pleadings in the trial of the instant case. [In the absence of any dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 3-1, 2, Eul evidence 3-1, 2, 1, 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings.
B. According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the sum of KRW 10,703,00 (==764,500 (=69,500 value-added tax of KRW 695,000 for monthly rent) x 14 months) and damages for delay pursuant to the instant sub-lease agreement, barring any special circumstances.
2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion
A. The Defendant continued to use and benefit from the store of this case since the beginning of 2013 and the D Management Body’s dispute over the management and operation rights of the store of this case deepens between the Plaintiff and D Management Body’s right of defense.