1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 34,133,179 and KRW 20,919,080 among them, from November 28, 2012 to the day of full payment.

1. Basic facts

A. On September 7, 2007, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant and Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government to sell the lease right of one commercial building C with the purchase price of 169,950,000 won (38,50,000 won for the lease deposit, and 119,50,000 won for the sale price, excluding the lease deposit, and 11,950,000 won for the lease deposit).

The location of the store was determined by drawing after the payment of the balance, and the sales price was settled according to the store area.

B. Around February 24, 2010, the Defendant allocated 20 units of 1st floor (3.62 square meters in exclusive use area, 15.21 square meters in parcelling-out area) by drawing lots, and the settlement amount due to the decline in the area was set at KRW 7,013,400.

(c) The remainder payment deadline, excluding the settlement amount, shall be April 30, 2010, and the overdue interest rate for the sale price shall be 19% per annum.

The defendant paid KRW 135,960,000 out of the sale price within the deadline, and additionally paid KRW 6,05,057,520 on November 27, 2012.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 34,133,179 won (the balance 20,919,080 won + delay damages 13,214,099 won) and damages for delay calculated by the rate of 19% per annum from November 28, 2012 to the date of full payment.

(1) The balance of 20,919,080 won (169,950,00 won-7,013,400 won-135,960,000 won-6,057,520 won) (2) the sale price of 26,976,60 won (169,950,000 won-7,013,400 won-135,960,000 won) from May 1, 2010 to November 27, 2012; and

B. The defendant asserts to the effect that the plaintiff entrusted the right to lease and manage the store, but the plaintiff failed to request the tenant and left the store in the factory room, thereby reporting enormous damages due to the decline in store value, etc.

However, there is no ground to view that the plaintiff is responsible for the lease of the store under the lease contract.