beta
Text
1. On September 16, 2015, the Plaintiff’s obligation under the temporary re-lease agreement against the Defendant is limited to KRW 44,804,824.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On September 16, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant on a temporary re-lease agreement (hereinafter “instant temporary re-lease agreement”) (hereinafter “instant temporary re-lease agreement”) with regard to the construction of an officetel in Sung-gu, Sungnam-si (hereinafter “instant construction”) by setting the amount of KRW 226,765,00 for the cost of the temporary re-lease agreement (including KRW 95,00 per square year x 2,170 for value-added tax, and value-added tax; hereinafter the same shall apply) by the end of the instant construction agreement.
B. The Defendant supplied the temporary materials at the construction site of the instant case pursuant to the instant temporary re-lease agreement, but no part of the temporary materials, such as system clubs, scarbs, co-markets, and wheelchairs, were supplied, and the Plaintiff supplied them from other companies and paid the total amount of KRW 39,735,418.
C. The Plaintiff paid KRW 139,650,001 to the Defendant in accordance with the instant temporary re-lease agreement.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, 7, 8, 9 and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the above facts of recognition, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay the Defendant the unpaid price of KRW 87,114,99 (=226,765,000 for the temporary re-lease agreement of this case – 139,650,001) under the temporary re-lease agreement of this case, barring any special circumstance.
However, according to the above facts, the defendant's failure to supply part of the temporary materials stipulated in the lease agreement of this case, thereby causing damage to the plaintiff, such as leasing them from other companies and paying a total of KRW 39,735,418, etc. Accordingly, 47,379,581 is set off against the unpaid amount. The defendant asserts that the object of lease of this case is not included in a system operation and a remote area, etc. under the lease agreement of this case, but it is recognized that the whole arguments in the evidence Nos. 2, 6, and 10 are added to the whole purport of the pleadings. In other words, the plaintiff and the defendant calculated the price at an ordinary unit price when concluding the temporary re-lease agreement of this case.