beta
Text
1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) is simultaneously paid KRW 20 million by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On August 21, 2012, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with C by setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 20 million, monthly rent of KRW 1.4 million, and the term of lease from September 1, 2012 to August 31, 2015.
B. On September 1, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease”) with the Defendant, setting the lease deposit of KRW 20 million, monthly rent of KRW 1.4 million (excluding value-added tax), from September 1, 2015 to August 31, 2017, with regard to the instant store.
C. The Plaintiff purchased the instant store from C and completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the instant store on September 21, 2015.
The defendant paid the lease deposit of KRW 20 million, and has received the delivery of the instant store, and has operated D convenience points at the instant store until now.
E. On June 2017, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the refusal to renew the lease by content-certified mail, and the above content-certified mail was served to the Defendant around that time.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the facts of the above recognition as to the main claim, the lease of this case was terminated on August 31, 2017 by the Plaintiff’s refusal to renew the lease of this case.
Therefore, the defendant is obligated to deliver the store of this case, which is the object of lease, to the plaintiff at the same time receiving KRW 20 million from the plaintiff.
3. Judgment on the counterclaim
A. The defendant asserts that the plaintiff refused a lease contract with a new lessee arranged by the defendant without justifiable grounds and obstructed his/her opportunity to recover the premium in violation of Article 10-4 (1) 4 of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act (hereinafter "Act"), and pursuant to paragraph (3) of the same Article, the defendant is equivalent to the objective premium of the store of this case, 36.