beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) paid KRW 56,132,00 to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and its amount from April 11, 2017 to June 4, 2019.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. A. Around July 2006, D leased the instant store from the Plaintiff and operated the instant store with the trade name “E” at the instant store. On May 26, 2014, D transferred its goodwill and fixtures to the Defendant for premium of KRW 14 million.
B. On May 30, 2014, the Defendant entered into a contract with the Plaintiff to lease the instant store with a deposit of KRW 65 million, KRW 2.2 million per month (including value-added tax, and the last day of each month), and the period from June 1, 2014 to May 31, 2015 (hereinafter “the instant lease”), and paid all deposits to the Plaintiff around that time.
As above, from June 10, 2014, the Defendant operated the head office with the trade name “E” at the instant store from June 10, 2014.
C. According to the instant lease agreement, the Defendant paid 440,000 won per month (including value-added tax) to the Plaintiff as management expenses in addition to the rent, and borne the water and electricity charges and disinfection expenses separately. 2) The Defendant, upon the expiration of the lease term of the instant case, should restore the “the portion damaged by the leased facilities and installation” to its original state, and if the lease term of the instant case is not fulfilled, the Defendant would settle the amount after deducting the expenses from the deposit to its original state.
The instant lease agreement was renewed on May 31, 2015, and renewed on May 31, 2016. The Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the termination of the instant lease agreement on January 10, 2017, and removed the Defendant’s equipment, etc. in the instant store around January 29, 2017, and returned the key of the instant store to the Plaintiff on February 2, 2017.
[Evidence] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 3, 11-1, 2, 12-2, Eul evidence Nos. 2, 5 and 11-2, Eul's video and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the fact that the lease of this case was terminated, the plaintiff is the defendant pursuant to Article 10 (5) of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act.