Text
1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On September 4, 2015, the Plaintiff leased a six-story 461.08 square meters (hereinafter “instant building”) from Defendant B, among the buildings located in Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do, by setting the deposit amount of KRW 40,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 4,600,000, and the period of September 15, 2018 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). Defendant C mediated the instant lease agreement.
B. Article 5 of the instant lease agreement provides that “The lessor shall pay the lessor for the cost of construction of the floor and alteration of the purpose of use of Class 1 entertainment facilities after the removal of the wall, and the cost of other facilities and the cost of additional taxes and public charges (such as entertainment tax and property tax, etc.) incurred due to the alteration of Class 1 entertainment facilities shall be paid by the lessee.”
C. The instant building is divided into six rooms from 601 to 606. Each head office was a private teaching institute or office. Among them, 603, 604, and 605 among them was changed into entertainment taverns, and 601, and 602 were changed into entertainment taverns.
On December 9, 2015, the Plaintiff sent to Defendant B a certificate of content that the instant lease agreement is terminated on the grounds of breach of the agreement, and the said certificate was served on Defendant B around that time.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Gap evidence 4-1, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion (1) was that the instant lease agreement was concluded on the premise that the entire building (six floors) was changed to a Class I amusement facility, and the Plaintiff concluded the instant lease agreement on the ground that there was no problem in the aforementioned change of use. In fact, only some of the instant building (603, 604, and 605) changed to a amusement facility, and the change of use of the remainder was impossible.
(2) Therefore, the Plaintiff is on the ground of Defendant B’s breach of duty.