beta
Text
1. The judgment of the first instance court, including the Plaintiff’s claim added at the trial court, shall be modified as follows:
The defendant.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Defendant’s building management 1) The Plaintiff is the 3rd and the 1st underground floor building in Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant building”).
The building of this case is the owner of the building of this case. The building of this case consists of the 1st underground floor, 1, 2, 3, and 4 rooftop. The 1st underground floor, 2, 3, and 4th underground floor are divided into the room or the store, and the 1st ground floor is divided into 5 square meters (2nd, 2nd, 1 square meters). The defendant is the plaintiff's ticket, from around 1989 to September 25, 2012, the building of this case was directly entrusted by the plaintiff for the management of the building of this case from the tenant, and was paid the rent to the plaintiff, and was managed by the method of paying it to the plaintiff.
B. The lease relationship 1) The front one column among the first floor stores on the ground of the instant building is the store that the Defendant first leased from the Plaintiff (hereinafter “sub-lease store of this case”).
(2) The Plaintiff asserted that the sub-lease of this case was transferred to E not by the Defendant but by the sub-lease of this case in the premium of KRW 50 million. However, as seen below, the Plaintiff’s assertion and judgment on the sub-lease of this case are difficult to accept the Plaintiff’s assertion, as seen below, as seen in the part of “i.e., (a) the party’s claim and judgment on the claim of the sub-lease of this case” (i) and (b) the sub-lease of this case. However, as E did not prepare the above premium, the Plaintiff of KRW 1 million per month from E as interest on the premium of KRW 1.2 million per month, which was paid by the Defendant to the sub-lease of this case by the Defendant, was repaid in installments of KRW 50,000,000 per month from the 1.2 million per month, but it is difficult to accept the Plaintiff’s assertion that the sub-lease of this case was paid in installments by the Defendant, as alleged by the parties below.
(b).