beta
Text
1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.
The Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) on 11,774.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, except for the following parts:
(The main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act). 2. The 4th to the last half of the decision of the court of first instance shall be made as follows.
"C. On October 27, 201, the Defendant conducted remodeling, etc., and completed the registration of a business operator in the name of the Defendant with respect to hotel business at the place of business on the leased object of the instant case, and suspended the operation of the hotel on March 14, 2015." The part of the first instance court’s 7th to 8th to 3th to the following: (a) the reason for the first instance court’s decision was as follows.
【B) In addition, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff is obligated to deliver the leased object of this case to the Plaintiff only with the refund and repayment of the lease deposit of this case from the Plaintiff.
Modern, Modern, :
As seen in the determination on the claim for a claim for a claim for a claim for a claim for a claim and a counterclaim, there is no lease deposit to be returned to the defendant as of the date of the closing of argument in the party hearing, so the defendant'
3) According to the theory of lawsuit, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the leased object of this case to the Plaintiff. C. Determination 1 on the claim for payment of overdue rent and unjust enrichment) The Defendant’s delay in payment of KRW 59,00,000, out of the rent from July 31, 2013 to July 31, 2013 when the instant lease contract was terminated, and the Defendant has been operating a hotel business from the leased object of this case from March 14, 2015 after the termination of the instant lease contract to March 14, 2015. Meanwhile, the rent of the leased object of this case is confirmed to have been KRW 15,00,000 each month after the termination of the instant lease contract. Accordingly, the Defendant is confirmed to have been ultimately the Plaintiff at the rate of KRW 59,00,000,000 from August 1, 2013 to March 14, 2015.