1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the order of additional payment shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. On October 21, 2014, the Plaintiff is referred to as the “instant store” from C on October 21, 2014, the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D 115 or less of 115.

B. A lease deposit of KRW 15,00,000, monthly rent of KRW 700,000, and the lease term of KRW 25,000 from October 25, 2014 to October 24, 2015 is the instant lease contract.

(B) Around that time, the above store was delivered to C. On January 15, 2015, the Defendant also acquired the lessor’s status under the instant lease agreement. On the 20th of the same month following the purchase of KRW 190,000,000 from the said store, the Defendant comprehensively acquired the lessor’s status under the instant lease agreement. On the same day, upon completing the registration of ownership transfer for the said store, the Plaintiff requested the Plaintiff to pay rent incurred in the future. (c) On the same day, the Plaintiff expressed his/her intent to terminate the instant lease as the Plaintiff did not consent to the change of the lessor. On March 11, 2015, the Plaintiff again expressed his/her intent to the same effect through the content-certified mail. The Plaintiff delivered the said store to the Defendant on March 15, 2015 by way of completely putting the said store out of the said store, but the Plaintiff did not pay the entire amount of rent from January 20, 2015 to 315.

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. Although the transfer of the lessor’s status in a lease agreement is accompanied by the transfer of the lessor’s duty, the lessor’s duty does not vary depending on whom the lessor is the owner of the object, and is almost fully performed in the position of the owner of the object. From the lessee’s standpoint, recognizing the succession of the duty may be much more favorable to the lessee. Therefore, only a contract with the lessor is concluded with the new owner.