1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Basic facts
A. (1) The Plaintiff is a manager entrusted by Seoul Special Metropolitan City with the management and operation of the Seoul FF Underpasses shopping mall (hereinafter “instant shopping mall”) including each store listed in the list of occupied stores by the Defendant (hereinafter “each store of this case”) in accordance with the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance on the Management of Underpasses shopping malls (hereinafter “instant shopping mall”).
(2) The Defendants are lessee who occupies and uses each of the instant stores located in the instant commercial building.
B. (1) On February 25, 2010, the Plaintiff entered into a public property loan agreement with the G merchants’ association (hereinafter “the instant merchants’ association”); and the Plaintiff entered into an agreement with a project implementer (hereinafter “instant agreement”); on the same day, the Plaintiff entered into a public property loan agreement for the instant commercial building (hereinafter “instant loan agreement”) with the contents that the management and operation right, including the right to enter into a lease agreement, for the stores in the instant commercial building, was entrusted for the next ten years.
(2) Meanwhile, on February 10, 2011, the Plaintiff and the instant merchants’ association and H (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) agreed to succeed to the status of the instant merchants’ association under the instant agreement and the instant loan agreement.
C. The Defendants, who concluded a lease agreement, concluded each lease agreement with the non-party company and each of the instant stores.
(1) On March 25, 2013, the Plaintiff notified the non-party company to the effect that “from March 27, 2013 to March 26, 2014, the Plaintiff would pay rent of KRW 11,106,778,00 for the third year (from March 27, 2013 to March 26, 2014)” but the non-party company cannot accept the Plaintiff’s above rent on April 5, 2013.
The answer was made to that effect.
(2) Accordingly, from May 2, 2013 to July 16, 2013, the Plaintiff urged the non-party company to pay the above loan charges on a total of six occasions.