beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The plaintiff's claim for the return of facility cost changed in exchange in this court.
Reasons
1. The reason why this Court uses this part of the basic facts is as stated in Paragraph 1 of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. Thus, this Court shall accept it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act
2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion
A. The reason why the court uses this part of the claim for damages caused by delay of performance is the part concerning the reason for the judgment of the court of first instance.
Since it is the same as the entry in a claim, it is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
(1) The plaintiff made a correction of "9,80,000 won" and "300,000,000 won" in the 6th sentence of the first instance judgment and the 17th sentence in the first instance judgment. (2)
In light of the following circumstances, the instant payment agreement of KRW 70 million is null and void as it violates good morals and other social order or abused a superior position in trade. As such, the Defendant should return KRW 70 million received from the Plaintiff in the name of facility cost as unjust enrichment.
① The Defendant received KRW 70 million as facility cost without any facilities as lessor of a new building.
(2) Article 10-3(1) of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act provides that the premium means the cost for the transfer or use of tangible and intangible property values, such as business facilities, fixtures, customers, credit, business know-how, and business interest points depending on the location of a commercial building, etc. by a person who conducts business in the commercial building which is the object of the lease, or a person who intends to conduct business, is the lessor or lessee, and the lessee pays money, etc. in addition to the deposit and rent. However, if the lessor permits the lessor to receive the above premium, many provisions of the above Act provide for protecting the lessee’s right to claim the return of the deposit.
(3) In fact, a defendant shall receive a part of the rent in advance, and the return of the rent income tax shall result in the promotion of tax evasion by omitting it.
(4)