1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance regarding the monetary payment shall be revoked, and that part shall be revoked by the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant).

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed as the same.

1. On October 21, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with the Defendant, setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 5,00,000, monthly rent of KRW 550,000, and the lease term of KRW 27, 201 as one year from October 27, 2014.

The Plaintiff received the above deposit from the Defendant and delivered the instant building to the Defendant around that time.

After that, on December 29, 2014, the Plaintiff and the Defendant newly prepared a lease contract from January 5, 2015 to January 5, 2016.

On January 7, 2016, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a certificate to the effect that “The instant lease agreement was terminated at the expiration of the term, and even if not, the instant lease agreement was terminated on the grounds of the Defendant’s vehicle delay, and thus, the Plaintiff’s delivery of the instant building and alteration thereof was received by the Defendant around that time.”

On October 24, 2016, the Plaintiff received delivery of the instant building through provisional execution of the judgment of the first instance court of this case.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1, 2, and 3 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The fact that the Defendant did not pay the Plaintiff the rent from August 5, 2015 to January 4, 2016 is not a dispute between the parties, and that the content of the Plaintiff’s declaration of intent to terminate the lease based on such fact reaches the Defendant around January 7, 2015, and thus, the instant lease agreement was lawfully terminated.

I would like to say.

On January 6, 2015, the Defendant agreed with the Plaintiff to renew the instant lease agreement on the condition that the previous rent in arrears and the future rent until the Plaintiff sold the instant building to a third party would be deducted from the lease deposit. Thus, the termination based on the delayed rent prior to January 6, 2015 is unjust.