beta
Text
1. The counterclaim of this case is dismissed.
2. The costs of the counterclaim shall be borne by the Counterclaim Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On February 29, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the counterclaim Defendant by setting up a deposit amount of KRW 60 million, monthly rent (including value-added tax), April 5, 2016 to April 4, 2021 with respect to the portion of KRW 68.66m2 (a) connected each point in sequence in the attached list owned by the counterclaim Defendant (hereinafter “instant store”) among the buildings indicated in the annexed list owned by the counterclaim Defendant: (a) KRW 1,3,4,5,000; (b) KRW 60,000,000 per annum; (c) KRW 8,140,000 per annum from April 5, 2016 to April 4, 2021; and (d) KRW 10% per annum at the time of the delay in rent (hereinafter “the instant lease agreement”) that the Defendant may cancel the lease agreement; and (d) from the time of the instant store occupation.
B. On September 25, 2017, the counterclaim Defendant notified the Plaintiff of his intention to terminate the instant lease agreement by way of content-certified mail, on the grounds that the rent, value-added tax, late payment charge, etc. for three months were overdue.
C. On December 9, 2017, the Counterclaim Plaintiff was a director at the instant store, and notified the Counterclaim Defendant on the 13th of the same month that the door was opened by the removal of the security access device (the compact device), and the Counterclaim Defendant requested the Counterclaim Defendant to attach the starting device at the time of the commencement of the lease, and the Counterclaim Plaintiff installed the starting device and kept the key.
On December 19, 2017, the counterclaim Defendant sent to the counterclaim the key to the instant store on December 31, 2017, stating that “The instant store was ordered to be restored to its original state, but the removal for restoration to its original state was not required with the consent of the lessor.” However, on December 31, 2017, the counterclaim delivered the key to the instant store to the counterclaim Defendant without the consent of the Lessee, without returning the instant store to its original state.
[Grounds for recognition] Gap 1 to 5, Eul 2, and 6 are written and arguments.