beta
Text
1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.
Purport of claim and appeal
1.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. Plaintiff B is the representative director of Plaintiff D, and Plaintiff A is the head of the hospital of E Hospital, and the Plaintiffs are married to the Plaintiffs, and the Defendant was working at the Daejeon District Prosecutors’ Office.
B. Around May 8, 2007, the CF (hereinafter referred to as “F”) set the term of lease 10 million won from June 1, 2007 to May 31, 2009, the term of lease 120 million won for lease deposit, and the monthly rent 1.2 million won for lease.
In the column of the special terms of the lease agreement made at the time, the term of the contract is extended by December 31, 2009. The term of the contract is extended by May 31, 2009. The term "the president of the E Hospital" is added, and the corporate seal of D, a corporation whose representative director is Plaintiff B, is affixed. The term of the above corporate Do is signed and sealed by J, an employee of D and E Hospital.
C. Around September 2012, F filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff, etc. seeking the return of KRW 100 million of the lease deposit after cancelling the lease agreement with the Plaintiff, etc.
In the above lawsuit, the plaintiff Eul et al. asserted that the overdue rent should be deducted from the lease deposit, and since the plaintiff Eul representing the plaintiff Eul et al. had been reduced to one million won per month from August 2007, the period of lease was extended and the plaintiff Eul exempted the overdue rent from the monthly rent from January 1, 2010, the plaintiff et al. asserted that there was no overdue rent to be deducted from the security deposit. The plaintiff et al. asserted that the plaintiff Eul et al. did not have the right of representation reduced the monthly rent or exempted from the right of representation.
The first instance court accepted the Plaintiff’s defense against overdue rent in arrears by the Plaintiff, etc., and rejected part of the F’s claim (Seoul Central District Court Decision 2012Da250410 decided August 21, 2013), but the appellate court was authorized the Plaintiff to act on behalf of the Plaintiff A, etc. regarding reduction or exemption of the rent in arrears.