beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, KRW 5,754,931 against the Plaintiff and its related thereto, from November 28, 2018 to April 9, 2020.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On February 6, 2018, the Plaintiff leased Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Dtel E (hereinafter “instant Office”) No. 20 million won, monthly rent of KRW 1.3 million, and the period from February 21, 2018 to February 20, 2019, with a view to operating the Dtel E (hereinafter “instant Office”).
(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). B.
The Plaintiff entered into the instant lease agreement as a broker by the Defendant, a licensed real estate agent, and paid KRW 660,000 to the Defendant as a brokerage commission.
C. On February 9, 2018, the Plaintiff had the instant officetel as its place of business, and completed its business registration by having the type of business as “business type: Services, Items: Handet.”
The Plaintiff operated the instant officetel course in the instant officetel, and removed all the Subdivision, etc. on May 22, 2018.
C leased the instant officetel to a third party on August 10, 2018, and on the 15 and 16th day of the same month, C returned the instant officetel to the Plaintiff (the amount calculated by deducting KRW 130,000,000 from KRW 20,000 to August 10, 2018, KRW 897,534 from KRW 20,000 to KRW 130,00 from KRW 20,00,000, and KRW 396,920 from the date of eviction of the Plaintiff, and adding KRW 130,00 from the value-added tax omitted).
【Reasons for Recognition】 Records of Evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6, 8, 9, 12, 31, and 32, or the purport of the entire pleadings
2. Although the Plaintiff’s assertion in the instant officetel could not lawfully operate the instant officetel, the Defendant explained to the Plaintiff that the instant officetel could lawfully operate the training course in the instant officetel, and the Defendant arranged the instant lease agreement.
The plaintiff was notified of the illegality of the competent Gu office and the pre-announcement of the fine for negligence, and closed the training center.
Therefore, the Defendant, due to nonperformance of obligations or tort liability, believed that the Plaintiff could operate a training center in the instant officetel lawfully and disbursed as follows.