beta
Text
1. The defendant is against the plaintiffs:
(a) Of the real estate listed in the separate sheet, the indication of the separate sheet No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 1.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiffs are owners who own each 1/2 co-ownership share in the attached list. D as father of the Plaintiffs, died on March 6, 2013 while managing real estate listed in the attached list on behalf of the Plaintiffs.
B. On July 20, 2010, D, representing the Plaintiffs, drafted a lease agreement with the Defendant to lease (hereinafter “the first lease agreement”) a portion of 199 square meters in the attached Form No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 1 among the real estate listed in the attached Table No. 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, and 1 (a) connected each point in sequence with the Defendant, among the real estate listed in the attached Table No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 1 (hereinafter “instant store”).
C. On August 20, 2010, D, representing the Plaintiffs, did not rent a deposit of KRW 120 million or KRW 100 million between the Defendant and the Defendant, and the lease term of the instant store was set up from September 9, 2010 to 60 months (hereinafter “second lease contract”).
From September 9, 2010, the Defendant occupied and used the instant store from around September 9, 201 to the date of the closing of argument.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 24, Eul evidence No. 4-3, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. Although the second lease contract was prepared after the first lease contract was made out of the gist of the plaintiffs' assertion, the lessor was written in D at the time of the first lease contract, and the lessor was changed to the plaintiffs and the lease term was changed to September 9, 2010, and the lease deposit or rent was not revised.
However, the fact that the second lease contract is not entered, because the plaintiff prepared only a deposit of KRW 120 million without being a public institution for the purpose of avoiding the payment of value-added tax, to avoid the payment of value-added tax.
However, the defendant is in arrears for at least three months from February 2013.