beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.
Reasons
Basic Facts
The reasons why the court shall explain this part of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows.
Inasmuch as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of paragraph 1, the same shall be cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
B. At the bottom of the second judgment of the first instance court, the parallel 5 to 1 of the parallel 3 at the bottom of the second judgment is as follows:
2) On December 29, 2016, while operating the instant hotel, C agreed to provide the Defendant with a lease deposit of KRW 300 million from January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2021, and the rent of KRW 200 million from February 1, 2017 to July 31, 2017 (the rent from February 1, 2017 to July 31, 2017 agreed to change the rent of KRW 130 million per month in consideration of the circumstances such as reduction of tourists, etc. (hereinafter “instant lease”). At the time, if a lessor or a lessee delays the performance of his/her monetary obligation owed to the other party, he/she shall pay interest in arrears by adding the interest calculated by multiplying the period from the date to the date of actual payment by 8% per annum.
around that time, the defendant is operating the above hotel after being entrusted with the operation of the hotel of this case by C.
Determination C as to the cause of a claim for judgment as to the claim on the principal claim of this lawsuit is as examined earlier, that the claim against the Defendant was transferred to the Plaintiff after March 2017, and C notifies the Defendant of the assignment of claims to the effect that “A transfer of claims against the Plaintiff was made after March 2, 2017,” and that the notification was received from the Defendant around that time, the Defendant did not pay KRW 100 million out of the rent for March 2017 (excluding value-added tax) and KRW 130 million from April 2017 to July 2017, respectively (excluding value-added tax). Accordingly, the Defendant is not paid KRW 688,200,000 (excluding value-added tax) unpaid to the Plaintiff, except in extenuating circumstances.