beta
Text
1. The conclusion of a re-contract between the principal claim and the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff for the payment of future rent.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On April 28, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant to lease real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant shopping mall”) at KRW 15,00,000, monthly rent of KRW 2,500,000 (the last day of each month, the separate amount of value-added tax; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the lease period from May 31, 2014 to October 31, 2015 (hereinafter “instant primary lease agreement”).
At this time, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a special agreement to adjust the monthly rent of KRW 20,000,000 from November 1, 2015 to October 31, 2016 when re-leases to the Defendant upon the expiration of the lease term of this case.
B. The Plaintiff received KRW 15,00,000 from the Defendant pursuant to the instant first lease agreement, and delivered the instant commercial building to the Defendant. The Defendant is operating a female clothes shop in the trade name of “D”.
C. On October 30, 2015, the Plaintiff concluded a lease agreement with the Defendant to lease the instant commercial building with a deposit of KRW 15,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 2,000,000 (payment on January 30), and with a lease term of KRW 1 year; however, instead of not increasing a deposit of KRW 5,00,000, the Plaintiff received KRW 30,000 per month; and after the lease period of KRW 2,50,000 per month, the Plaintiff would return the monthly rent of KRW 1 year to KRW 2,50,00 (hereinafter “instant secondary lease agreement”).
The Defendant paid KRW 2,500,000 for monthly rent according to the instant first lease agreement. From November 1, 2015 to November 1, 2015, the Defendant paid KRW 30,000 for monthly rent and KRW 2,000 to pay in lieu of increasing the deposit pursuant to the instant second lease agreement.
[Reasons for Recognition] There is no dispute, Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence 3, lease contract, and defendant's seal image, and thus the authenticity of the entire document is presumed to be established.
The defendant set up a defense that this document was made by the plaintiff's coercion, but there is evidence to prove it.