beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against Defendant A in the judgment is modified as follows.
Defendant A, the Plaintiff, and 1.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, citing this case, is as stated in the part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the court gives rise to dismissal or addition of “judgments on the defendant’s assertion” as stated in paragraph (2). Thus, it shall be cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 4
2. Part II written or added "B Nos. 1 and 3" shall be added to "B Nos. 1, 3, 6, and 9" in Part II, written or added.
The third-class 9 to 19 of the first instance judgment shall be followed as follows.
5,530,750 won per month (the above three months prior to the expiration of the lease contract of this case) for the rent of the store of this case after the expiration of the lease contract of this case.
same as the monthly average rent calculated in accordance with the method of calculating the rent in this subsection.
F. Defendant A paid to the Plaintiff KRW 17% or KRW 5,530,750 of the net sales, excluding value-added tax, out of the sales from business, by rent up to June 2015.
2. Determination:
A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, since the lease contract of this case was terminated upon the expiration of the period, barring special circumstances, Defendant A is obligated to remove the facility of this case and deliver the store of this case to the Plaintiff, and pay the Plaintiff the amount of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent in proportion to the rate of KRW 5,530,750 per month from July 16, 2015 to the day the above delivery is completed, and Defendant B and C are obligated to leave the store of this case.
The following is added to the 7th sentence of the first instance judgment. The Defendants asserted that “The Defendants agreed to extend the term of the 4th lease contract” had a verbal agreement between Defendant A and the Plaintiff through I, the managing director of the Plaintiff’s side, upon entering into the instant lease agreement.
However, the statement No. 8 alone is insufficient to recognize the defendants' assertion, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
Therefore, it is true.