beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
purport, purport, and.
Reasons
1. Grounds for entering this case in the court of first instance as to this case and grounds for the judgment of the court of first instance
2.(b)
2) The part of “the existence of an agreement on the refund of premium and whether to pay the premium are as indicated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance court, other than the following, and thus, it is cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. 2. The payment of the premium, which is accompanied by the lease of a building for business purpose to determine the claim on the premium payment, does not constitute the content of the lease contract, and is not the content of the lease, and the premium is the transfer of intangible property value, such as business facilities, non-commercial items, or tangible property, credit, business know-how (know-how or store location) or the cost of use for a given period.
Where premium has been paid to a lessor from a lessee, the lessor shall not be obliged to return the premium, as long as the acquisition of the tangible or intangible property value or the use for the agreed period is effective.
First of all, it is examined whether there was an agreement on the return of premiums between the plaintiff couple and the defendants as alleged by the plaintiff.
According to the statement in Gap evidence No. 1, it is recognized that the plaintiff's first special terms of the lease agreement held by "1.0 million won shall be paid in daily amount of the right."
However, the above evidence and the following circumstances revealed, namely, ① the entire building including the instant store and the sales of the site thereof, to Defendant C operated a restaurant at the instant store, ② the registration of ownership transfer pursuant to the said sales contract has not yet been completed at the time when the first lease contract was concluded, and the Plaintiff’s husband and wife received the instant store before the completion of the said lease contract, and ③ the amount of the right.