beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 31,241,935 for the Plaintiff and 6% per annum from October 27, 2015 to November 30 of the same year.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On October 10, 201, C entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant on the second floor (hereinafter “instant building”) of the D Building Nos. 201 of Seongbuk-gu, Sungnam-si, Sungnam-si, which is owned by the Defendant, with a lease agreement of KRW 50 million, and KRW 2750,000,000 (including value-added tax) in the rent month (hereinafter “existing lease agreement”) and operated a restaurant in the number of rice stations in Vietnam, and the lease agreement is same as the monthly lease agreement for commercial buildings as of October 10, 2011.
B. Since August 20, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant on the instant building with a lease deposit of KRW 50 million, monthly rent of KRW 2750,000 (including value-added tax) (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”), and continued to operate the said rice-state restaurant after delivery of the instant building from the lessee of the existing lease agreement, such as C, and the said lease agreement is identical to the monthly lease agreement for commercial buildings dated August 20, 2013, and the payment of the lease deposit was substituted by the deposit for the lease deposit for the existing lease agreement.
C. In conclusion of the existing lease agreement and the instant lease agreement, the E Licensed Real Estate Agent Office performed the brokerage service, and F, an assistant to the said brokerage office, performed the business on behalf of the Defendant as to the relevant lease relationship since the conclusion of the instant lease agreement.
On October 9, 2015, the instant lease agreement was terminated upon the expiration of the contract term. The Plaintiff, while running a 17-day business after the expiration of the contract term, took out all the house fixtures, etc. on October 26, 2015, and demanded the Defendant to return the lease deposit and receive the keys of the said building through F while leaving the instant building. The Defendant demanded the Defendant to restore the leased deposit to the original state, such as removal works, etc., and refused to return the lease deposit and receive the keys of the said building.
E. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s “E Licensed Real Estate Agent” on November 20, 2015 is an addressee.