The appeal by the Lessee is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Lessee.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of this case is as follows: “...................”; “from November 30, 2016,” “from August 30, 2017,” “from August 2016,” “from August 16, 2016,” “on delivery” “in the first 16th 10th 16th 16th 10th 16th 10th 16th 10th 10th 10th 10th 20th 6th 20th 6th 6th 201.

2. The addition;

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the period of termination of the instant lease agreement was terminated by the first instance court, despite the fact that the period of termination of the instant lease agreement was November 30, 2016 between the parties, and that there was no dispute between the parties. However, the Plaintiff expressed to the counter-party Defendant around July 9, 2016 that the instant lease agreement was terminated by the first instance court, and that the instant lease agreement was terminated by August 9, 2016.

Article 547(1) of the Civil Act provides, “If one or both parties exist, the termination or rescission of the contract shall be made against all or some of them.” Thus, in a case where several persons jointly lease a lease contract with the lessee, the lessee shall express his/her intention of termination to all of them unless there are special circumstances, such as a special agreement excluding the application of Article 547(1) of the Civil Act, etc.

However, the written evidence Nos. 5, 13, and 23 alone is insufficient to acknowledge the fact that the Counterclaim expressed its intention of termination to all the counter-leased defendants around July 9, 2016, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the above assertion is without merit.

B. On the part of damage compensation under Article 13(2) of the lease contract, the counterclaim is up to July 19, 2017.