beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
Reasons
1. The following facts may be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence of 1 to 4 (including paper numbers), Eul evidence of 1 to 3 to 6, unless there is a dispute between the parties or in full view of the purport of the whole pleadings:
On November 19, 1993, the Plaintiff operated a store (hereinafter “instant store”) with the trade name “D” as part of the first floor among the above buildings in Seongbuk-gu, Seongbuk-gu, Sungnam-gu, Seoul, with a deposit of KRW 10 million, monthly rent of KRW 350,000,000,000,000,0000,0000 won, and monthly rent of KRW 200,000,000,000,000,000 won.
(Monthly rent for part of the above 1st floor has increased from 2010 to 400,000 won per month).
The store of this case was included in E-Housing Redevelopment Development and Improvement Project (hereinafter “instant project”). However, on November 7, 2016, the Sungnam City approved and publicly notified the instant project’s management and disposal plan.
C. On September 29, 2017, the Korea Land and Housing Corporation, the implementer of the instant project, filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking the delivery of the instant store (U.S. District Court 2017DaDa223230), and was sentenced to a favorable judgment on March 16, 2018, which became final and conclusive on May 2, 2018, and the Plaintiff received the business loss compensation payment from the Korea Land and Housing Corporation on May 27, 2018, and delivered the instant store on May 27, 2018.
Meanwhile, on July 13, 2016, the Plaintiff did not pay the rent for arrears after paying 1.2 million won to the Defendant. As such, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking the payment of the rent for arrears. In such lawsuit, the Plaintiff recognized the fact that the Plaintiff delayed the payment of the rent for 25 months, including the rent for 25 months from July 2013, 2015, May 2016, and from March 2016 to January 2018, and on the premise that the amount equivalent to the lease deposit is deducted from 15 million won, the Defendant would not remain the lease deposit to be refunded to the Plaintiff.