beta
Text
1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)
A. Of the buildings listed in the attached list, 1109.48 square meters and 116.0 square meters among the buildings listed in the attached list.
Reasons
1. The principal lawsuit and counterclaim shall also be deemed to exist;
A. 1) On April 7, 2010, the Plaintiff signed the instant lease agreement with the Defendant as his husband C as his husband’s agent (hereinafter “instant building”). The building indicated in the separate sheet between the Defendant and the Defendant (hereinafter “instant building”).
The part of the instant building is 109.48m2 and 116.85m2 (hereinafter “instant building”).
(3) The term of a lease agreement that provides for a lease deposit of KRW 70 million; KRW 3 million per month; KRW 50,000 per month; and the term of lease from May 10, 2010 to May 10, 2015 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).
(2) Article 4 of the lease contract of this case provides that the lessor may terminate the lease contract if the lessee fails to pay the rent more than twice. Article 9 of the Special Agreement provides that the lessor shall have the right to the whole first floor of the present facility (sok, floor boiler of the first floor) and shall be responsible for the restoration to its original state.
3) On May 10, 2010, the Plaintiff delivered the instant part of the building to the Defendant. On the same day, the Defendant paid the remainder of the rental deposit KRW 40 million to the Plaintiff, and from June 2010, the Plaintiff operated the said part of the building. (b) The Defendant, including the Defendant’s delinquency in rent, etc., paid only the Plaintiff the rent between May 10, 201 and June 9, 201, and the rent and management fee from May 10, 201 to September 9, 2010, and suspended the said restaurant business around July 25, 2012, on the ground that the charge for compelling the performance was not imposed on the 1st floor of the instant building; and (c) the Defendant, on the ground that the instant construction was in violation of the Building Act, on May 10, 2010 and the charge for compelling the performance, 201.