beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On August 17, 2010, the Plaintiff: (a) leased the Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Ground C Ground Housing and Native Facilities (hereinafter “instant building”); (b) five years of lease deposit; (c) KRW 100 million; (d) monthly rent of KRW 2.8 million (excluding value-added tax; (d) from February 17, 2013 to August 16, 2015; and (e) determined and leased the use of coffee shop, clothing shop, gallon, and gals; and (e) paid a deposit of KRW 100 million to the Defendant; and (e) paid a deposit of KRW 100 million to the Defendant; and (e) operated a carpet and gals on delivery of the instant building.
B. The instant lease agreement provides that when the Plaintiff returned the instant building, the lessor does not make a monetary claim against the Defendant, regardless of the pretext of facility costs, premiums, etc.
In order to clarify the terms and conditions of the lease agreement, the Plaintiff and the Defendant drafted a protocol of compromise prior to the filing of a lawsuit with the Seoul Eastern District Court 2010No. 568, and the Plaintiff provided that the Plaintiff cannot file a claim with the Defendant for the facility cost, necessary cost, beneficial cost, premium, etc.
C. Although the lease contract was scheduled to terminate on August 16, 2015, the Plaintiff’s husband’s wife D was asked to send the Defendant’s Nonparty’s message to E on July 22, 2015 so that it can run the business by the end of October, as the Plaintiff’s husband’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s.
After that, on August 12, 2015, the Plaintiff sent a content-certified mail to the effect that the Plaintiff would protect the opportunity to recover the premium as stipulated in Article 10-4 of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act, but the mail was returned because the address is unknown.
D also sent Kakao Stockholm message to E for the same purpose on August 12, 2015, stating that the opportunity to recover the premium was changed, but it was stipulated that E would not recognize the premium under the contract.