beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 11,604,00 for the Plaintiff and 6% per annum from October 15, 2016 to April 27, 2018.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On July 13, 2015, the Defendant entered into a lease contract and the interior contract with the Plaintiff (i.e., the Defendant) with the non-party partnership (hereinafter “leased”)
(C) The Seoul Mapo-gu Residential Facility and Housing (hereinafter referred to as the “instant building”) with the second floor above C in Mapo-gu Seoul
) A contract under which B/L is leased at KRW 50,000,000 (hereinafter “instant lease contract”) from August 10, 2015 to August 10, 2017; and KRW 5,000,000 (hereinafter “instant lease contract”).
(2) The Defendant paid the said deposit to the lessor until August 10, 2015, and received delivery of the instant building.
3) The Defendant, with the trade name of “D”, concluded a contract for the removal of the existing interior facilities and equipment, waterproof, waterproof, electricity, furniture, fire fighting construction, etc. of the instant building to the Plaintiff, who runs the interior fishery business (hereinafter “D”) with the contract price of KRW 56,459,100 (excluding value-added tax) (hereinafter “the instant interior fishery construction contract”).
(B) From August 14, 2015, the Plaintiff began to proceed with temporary works, removal works, etc. in the instant building from around August 14, 2015, and the instant building was worn out and leaked, and electric wires, pipes, equipment, etc. were replaced, and due to the illegal extension, the Plaintiff knew the Defendant that the instant interior works could not be carried out according to the initial estimate because there were problems, such as violation of the Fire Services Act due to the illegal extension.
2) Accordingly, the Defendant demanded the lessor to share the construction cost added due to the defect of the instant building, but did not reach the adjustment ratio between the lessor and the lessor. Under the foregoing circumstances, the interior works of the instant case was interrupted on August 21, 2015, which is only one week prior to the commencement of the construction works. 3) Since August 27, 2015, the Defendant notified the lessor that the instant lease would be terminated if the lessor did not comply with the demand for share of construction cost due to the defect of the instant building from August 27, 2015.