beta
Text
1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.
Purport of claim and appeal
1.
Reasons
1. The reasons for the court's explanation of this case are as follows: "Defendant C" shall be "C"; "B" of "B" of "B" of "B" of the judgment of the court of the first instance shall be "C"; and except for the parts of the judgment in the 9th to 8th and 14th as follows, the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance shall be as stated in the part of the judgment of the court of first instance; therefore, it shall be cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Next, comprehensively taking account of the health class, witness witness witness witness witness witness witness’s testimony, the fact that Defendant D granted the right to represent the third lease agreement of this case and paid his seal imprint, etc., and that G entered into the third lease agreement on behalf of Defendant D on behalf of Defendant D.
However, in the premise facts, the following facts are acknowledged by considering Eul's evidence Nos. 2 and Eul's evidence Nos. 8 and the purport of the entire pleading. In other words, G agreed to pay a total of KRW 100 million of the facility cost or premium to Defendant Eul on behalf of the defendant Eul, instead of paying the above money to the defendant Eul, and the deceased requested to enter the above agreement in the lease contract as above and requested for the change of the contract, which included "60 million won before February 30" in the third lease contract of this case. Thus, the above agreement cannot be deemed as an agreement entirely separate from the lease contract because it is a change of the facility cost or premium agreement with the former lessee occurring at the time of the ordinary commercial building lease contract, and there seems to have been discussions on the facility cost or premium agreement between the defendant Eul and Eul before the preparation of the contract, and 20 million of the right of representation in the lease contract of this case is granted to the defendant Eul.