beta
Text
1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:
The defendant shall receive KRW 10 million from the plaintiff at the same time.
Reasons
1. On May 30, 2015, the Plaintiff’s basic facts of the claim: (a) on the first floor of the commercial building listed in the attached Table 1, the deposit money of KRW 10 million for the deposited money of KRW 10 million for the deposited money and KRW 50,000 for the rent of KRW 50,000 for the monthly rent of KRW 50,000 for the attached Table 1 attached hereto, which is owned by the Defendant, are attached in sequence 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1.
6. Subsequent payment. Value added tax is set aside), and management expenses are KRW 45,00 per month (the contract includes KRW 50,000, but the plaintiff has reduced KRW 5,000 per month.
Accordingly, the rent and management expenses that the Defendant is obliged to pay to the Plaintiff each month (hereinafter referred to as “rent”) shall be KRW 6,50,000 ( KRW 550,00 x 1.145,00), including value-added tax on rent, and the lease term is the real estate lease agreement (hereinafter referred to as “instant contract”) that provides for lease from June 6, 2015 to June 6, 2017.
(2) On May 30, 2015, the Defendant paid KRW 10 million to the Plaintiff on May 30, 2015, and began to operate the clothes (trade name: F) in delivery from the Plaintiff on June 6, 2015, which is the starting date of lease. ③ An accident that damages the toilet pipes that passed the ceiling of the store of this case due to the damage of the toilet pipes that were accumulated into the store of this case and displayed by the Defendant around January 25, 2016 (hereinafter “accident in this case”).
A. Upon the Defendant’s contact, the Plaintiff accepted the toilet pipes damaged on or around January 26, 2016, and ④ the instant contract was explicitly renewed on June 6, 2017, which is the expiration date of the lease term, and ⑤ the Defendant paid the Plaintiff only the rent of KRW 3.9 million for six months up to November 2015, and did not pay the following rent. Accordingly, on June 9, 2017, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a letter stating the purport that “the contract of this case is terminated because the delayed amount reaches three or more months.”