beta
Text
1. All appeals filed by the Plaintiff and Defendant B are dismissed.
2. The appeal shall accrue by the plaintiff among the costs of appeal.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the court's reasoning of this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for dismissal or addition as stated in paragraph (2). Thus, this case is cited as it is in accordance with Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. The portion to be removed or added is as follows: “ March 18, 2018” in the third column below the written box in the first instance judgment; “ January 1, 2017” in the fourth column below the written box in the sixth column shall be deemed as “ March 18, 2016”; and “ January 1, 2018.”
Then, at the bottom of the first instance judgment, the Defendant Company arbitrarily removed internal facilities equivalent to KRW 50 million, such as air conditioners, water conditioners, etc., installed on the instant real estate by the Plaintiff, and thus, the damages equivalent to the value of the said facilities should also be deducted from the lease deposit of this case.
Then, “The fact that the Defendant Company received the report of business closure as prescribed by the agreement of this case and delivered the instant real estate to the Plaintiff” is added to “the fact that the Defendant Company received the report of business closure as prescribed by the agreement of this case.”
The following shall be added to the 7th sentence following the first instance judgment.
【Implementation of the “agreement” stipulated in the instant agreement refers to the performance of all obligations as a lessee arising from the termination of the instant lease agreement, including the duty to deliver the real estate of the Defendant Company specified in the said agreement and the duty to cancel the registration of the establishment of the instant chonsegwon, as well as the duty to report the closure thereof. However, it is insufficient to recognize that the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone was an agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant to assume other obligations than the duty of the Defendant Company specified in the instant agreement, and there is no other evidence. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is rejected as follows.