beta
Text
1. The plaintiff and the defendant against the defendant exceeding the amount ordered to be paid under the judgment of the first instance.
Reasons
1. On or around July 18, 2005, the agreement is concluded on or around June 1, 2006, when the agreement is concluded on July 1, 2005, management expenses of KRW 1,000,000 for the month (payment on July 31) of KRW 1,000,000 for the monthly management expenses of KRW 1,00,000 ( KRW 5,000 for the ordinary day) for the 1,00,000 for the 1,00,000 for the date of termination or termination of the contract for the dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-based
A. The Plaintiff, as the lessee, concluded a lease agreement with the Defendant as to the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D Building (Seoul Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government F)’s second floor (hereinafter “instant building”). The details and progress of the agreement are as follows.
B. The Plaintiff received all the rent from July 18, 2003 to March 31, 2005 regarding the front door bank room in the instant lease agreement, and apart from September 7, 2005 to February 17, 2015, the Plaintiff received KRW 59,300,000 in total from the Defendant and the co-defendant C (hereinafter “C”) of the first instance court (hereinafter “Defendants”) with regard to the front door bank room and the front door bank room.
C. From March 2, 200, the Defendant, an architect, operated “G” in the instant building from March 2, 200, and C registered as a business entity of “G” engaging in the interior construction business by making the location of the instant building as the location of the building on March 13, 2014.
[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 8, 11, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. The defendant under the instant lease agreement only allowed C to use an architect qualification certificate, and it is not a party to the instant lease agreement, and only C is a lessee who is a party to the instant lease agreement. Thus, according to C's statement in the court of first instance, the defendants are certified architects, and C is an architect in charge of operation.