The nature of the so-called premium in a lease agreement;

The so-called premium is that the tenant of a store transfers the right of lease to another person, and is paid by the transferee of the right of lease for intangible property value, such as the customer relationship, credit, and other intangible property value, and location profit, etc. which he has accumulated up to the time of the transfer of the store, and in general, unless there are circumstances of the special group where the tenant has paid the premium to the lessor or the lessee has been aware of the fact that the tenant has paid the premium when he takes over the store, and that the tenant has been actually paid the premium at the time of the transfer and takeover of the store, the lessee has no right to seek payment from the lessor at the time of the termination of the lease.

Articles 618 and 623 of the Civil Act

Maximum Pool

Kim Hong-tae

Mag-ro Vessels

1. On the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant),

A. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) Kim Hong-tae ordered the part 17.5 square meters at the place of the ship, which connects each point of Annex 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1 of Annex 1 to the real estate listed in Annex 1 attached hereto;

B. The Defendant Amway received from the Plaintiff the remainder set off an amount of KRW 317,697 per month from KRW 10,623,617 to KRW 317,697 each month from March 4, 1987, and at the same time, connects each point of KRW 1,23,4, and 1,4,6, and 14.0 square meters each of the drawings as shown in the attached Table 1, 2, and 3 of the real estate listed in the attached Table 1, 3 in sequence 22.7 square meters and the same drawings 1,4,5,6, and 14.0 square meters each.

2. The remainder of the Defendant-Counterclaim Defendant’s counterclaim and the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff’s counterclaim against the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff are dismissed, respectively.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, the portion arising between the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) is borne by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) Kim Hong, through both the principal lawsuit and the counterclaim, and the portion arising between the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the Defendant Ansan Line is divided into two parts, and the remainder is borne by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the Defendant Ansan Line, respectively.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The principal lawsuit: The defendant (Counterclaim defendant, hereinafter the plaintiff, hereinafter the plaintiff, hereinafter the plaintiff) Kim Hong-tae connects each point of attached Form 1, 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1 of the real estate listed in attached Table 1 of the attached Table 1 with the 17.5 square meters at the close section of the ship, and the defendant Analle Line connects each point of attached Table 2, 1, 3, 4, 1 of the real estate listed in attached Table 1, 2, and 3 of the attached Table 1, 3 among the real estate listed in attached Table 1, 1, 2, and 3 with the direction of 22.7 square meters and the 1,4,5,6, and 14.0 square meters at the end of the ship, respectively.

Costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendants, and a judgment of provisional execution shall be pronounced.

Counterclaim: The plaintiff shall pay 30,000,000 won to defendant Kim Hong.

Litigation costs are assessed against the plaintiff.

The plaintiff's claim against the defendants and the plaintiff's counterclaim against defendant Kim Hong-tae are also examined.

Comprehensively taking account of the entries in Gap evidence 2-1,2 (each lease contract) and the appraisal results of the Domnam, the plaintiff did not conflict with the defendant Kim Hong on June 25, 1985, the lease period of 1,2,3,4, and 5 of the attached Table 1 on the 17.5 square meters Dom-dong 17.5 square meters (hereinafter referred to as "one story store" in this case) is 71,178,00 won and the lease deposit is 30,00 won, and the lease deposit is 30,000 won and the lease deposit is 30,000,000 won and the lease deposit is 3,00,000 won and the lease deposit is 3,000,000,000 won and 3,000,000 per 3,000,000 per 1,233,000 square meters and 4,000 square meters per 6,144, 7,5.

Therefore, the Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff and the Defendants, a lessee, are liable to order the first floor store and the third floor store, respectively, to the Plaintiff, the object of each lease contract. Accordingly, each of the Defendants’ stores, as a commercial building for lease, continuously engages in business by continuously investing a large amount of effort and capital in the leased store, and constitutes intangible property, such as credit and customer relationship, etc., the term of lease under the lease contract is indicated at the time, and the term of lease is not limited. Thus, even if the above term of lease expires, it is not immediately terminated even if the Plaintiff and the Defendants agreed to the effect that the term of lease expires, but the relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendants was not terminated, and since the expiration of the term of lease contract, the Plaintiff and the Defendants continued to establish the term of lease contract with the first floor and the third floor store, it is difficult to recognize that the term of lease contract was 10 years after the expiration of the term of lease contract between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff and the Defendants, and that the Defendants continued to own the above term of lease contract with the 10th floor until 10th floor.

As to this, Defendant Kim Hong-tae asserts that the plaintiff's name is unfair because the store of this first floor is not owned by the plaintiff, but owned by the plaintiff and the non-party heading, and the defendant Ana-ro shop of this third floor is not owned by the plaintiff, but owned by the plaintiff and the non-party heading 3 and 50, and that the plaintiff's name is unfair because the store of this third floor is owned by the plaintiff and the non-party heading 50. Thus, it is obvious that the plaintiff is seeking the name of each of the above stores on the ground that the lease term expires. Accordingly, each of the above arguments by the defendants cannot be a reason that the plaintiff can block the plaintiff's request for the name of this building. Thus, there is no need to review further.

After March 30, 1986, the plaintiff and the above defendant received the rent of KRW 450,00 per month from the above defendant after the expiration of the lease term. Thus, the plaintiff asserted that the above lease contract was implicitly renewed by the above defendant. The plaintiff and the above defendant received the rent of the above contract from the above defendant by August 30, 1986. However, the above lease contract was implicitly renewed as alleged by the above defendant because there is no dispute between the plaintiff and the above defendant. However, according to the evidence Eul No. 5 (Notice) without dispute, it can be acknowledged that the plaintiff expressed his intention to terminate the lease contract against the above defendant and the above defendant delivered his intention to the above defendant on September 3, 1986. Thus, the above lease contract for the third floor store was changed to the lease without a fixed period of time after the above implied renewal, and six months have passed since the above expression of intention to terminate the contract was terminated by the plaintiff and the above defendant as the renewal of the lease relationship between the plaintiff and the above defendant.

In addition, the defendant Kim Tae-tae paid the above 30,00 won premium to the non-party 1's tenant at the time of the above 1's moving into the 1's store. Thus, the plaintiff is obligated to pay the same money to the non-party 30,00,000 won. At the same time, the plaintiff's counterclaim was claimed for the same payment to the plaintiff because the non-party 1's tenant's right to use the above 3's rent was 0,000 won, and the plaintiff's right to use the 1's rent was 00,000 won to the non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 1's.

On the other hand, the fact that the defendant Ag-ro paid the plaintiff a gold of KRW 13,368,00 as the lease deposit for the third floor store in this case does not conflict between the plaintiff and the above defendant, and the plaintiff is obligated to return the same amount to the defendant. The above defendant's name of the third floor store in this case and the plaintiff's duty to return the above lease deposit are related to the simultaneous performance.

On the other hand, the plaintiff did not pay the rent of KRW 450,00 per month after September 1, 1986, and illegally occupied the third floor store. Thus, the above defendant is obligated to compensate the plaintiff for the amount equivalent to KRW 450,00 per month from September 1, 1986 to the name of the third floor store. Thus, the above defendant's obligation to return the lease deposit must be offset against the amount equivalent to the above damages.

Therefore, as seen earlier, it is recognized that the lease contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the part of the Defendant was explicitly renewed and terminated on March 3, 1987 due to the Plaintiff’s declaration of termination. There is no dispute over the fact that the said Defendant occupied and used the three-story store up to now, and the said Defendant paid to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 450,00 per month until August 31, 1986. However, there is no evidence to support the fact that the said Defendant paid the Plaintiff a rent of KRW 2,74,383 (450,000 +640,000 +640,000 +363,000) from September 1, 1986 to March 3, 3, 1987, the said Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff a set-off of KRW 360,360,000 to the Plaintiff (hereinafter the same shall apply).

Then, the plaintiff's 3rd floor store is part of the real estate stated in the attached Table 1, 2, 3 (Certified Copy's Register) and the appraisal result as to the offset claim based on the illegal point of the above 3rd floor store after the termination of the above lease contract. In full view of the plaintiff's 3rd floor store's 40.45 percent of the real estate stated in the attached Table 1, 90.45 percent of the attached Table 1, 40.425 percent of the attached Table 2, 44.2 percent of the above 3rd floor office's 4.0 percent of the above 3rd unit office's 3rd unit office's 197.3rd unit office's 47.5 percent of the above 3rd unit office's 3rd unit office's 197th unit office's 3rd unit office's 197.3rd unit office's 47.5 percent of the above 3rd unit's 197.47.75 percent shares

Thus, the plaintiff is obligated to order the store of the first floor of this case, and the defendant Analk Line received from the plaintiff 10,623,617 to 317,697 won per month from March 4, 1987 to 10,623,617 to 317,697, and at the same time, has the duty to order the third floor store of this case. The plaintiff's claim of this case is justified to the extent of seeking the fulfillment of the duty, and the remaining claim against the defendant Analk Line and the counterclaim against the defendant Kim Hong-k will be dismissed, respectively, and the costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the application of Article 89, Article 92, Article 93 of the Civil Procedure Act to Article 199 of the provisional execution.

Judges Lee Jae-soo (Presiding Judge)