beta
Text
1. As to Plaintiff A’s KRW 17,367,290, Plaintiff B’s KRW 10,752,00, and each of the said money, the Defendant began on December 18, 2015.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On October 13, 2015, the Plaintiffs, a couple, concluded a lease agreement with the Defendant on the condition that the Defendant rent the lease deposit amount of KRW 5,000,000, and KRW 2,000,000, and KRW 300,000, and KRW 300,000, and KRW 300,000, and the lease term of November 5, 2017 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). At that time, the Defendant paid the Defendant KRW 7,00,000,000 in aggregate of the lease deposit amount.
B. Meanwhile, on September 2, 2015, the Plaintiffs entered into a contract with the former lessee for transfer and takeover of rights with respect to the instant lease agreement ( April 5, 2016), and around that time, paid KRW 10,000,000 as the premium for the instant commercial building to E.
C. On October 15, 2015, the Plaintiffs carried out electric facilities, expansion, and interior interior interior interior interior interior works to install electric emitting machines for the production and sales of the instant stores. The Defendant voluntarily carried out electric extension works and obstructed the construction.
Accordingly, the Plaintiffs completed the interior work on November 2015, and removed and restored all the construction works related to the extension of electricity, and delivered the instant store to the Defendant, and notified the cancellation of the instant lease agreement.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 13, witness F's testimony, fact-finding inquiry and reply to the remaining mountainous districts of the Republic of Korea by this court, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The parties' assertion
A. The plaintiffs asserted that they agreed to the extension of electricity to the commercial buildings of this case at the time of the lease agreement of this case, but they did not consent to the extension of electricity to the extension of electricity to the commercial buildings of this case.
Therefore, the lease contract of this case is attributable to the defendant.