beta
Text
1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.
Purport of claim and appeal
1.
Reasons
1. The following facts are acknowledged in full view of facts found in this Court or evidence Nos. 1 to 6 and the purport of the entire pleadings.
A. On July 1, 2003, the Plaintiff entered into a real estate lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with Defendant B’s father, who represented Defendant B, on behalf of the Defendant B, on the following terms of the housing of the 3rd floor building located in the Dong-gu, Ulsan-si and the “E” (hereinafter “E”) of the third floor building:
A lease deposit amounting to KRW 150 million, monthly renting to KRW 2.5 million, and a special contract for two years during the lease term - If bathing business is less than one, the lessor partially reduces the rent.
- The lessor shall not be paid monthly rent in July and August each year.
B. Meanwhile, while entering into the instant lease agreement, the Plaintiff and the Defendants prepared a document stating the promise of mutual relationship (hereinafter “instant promise”) with the following day.
Premium shall not be liable to the owner for the premium.
The lessor shall pay the remainder (nine million won) after deducting the monthly rent (five million won) for two months from among the construction cost and the repair cost of 14 million won for each underground floor.
However, in the column of preparing the lower end of the instant promise, “(E) B and agent C” is indicated.
C. On July 1, 2003, the Plaintiff started the bath business upon delivery of the instant bath. However, the Plaintiff was unable to conduct business due to serious defects in the said bath building, and was demanded to compensate the Defendants.
Then, Defendant B, upon the reversal of the instant lease agreement and requesting the Plaintiff to deliver the instant bath, drafted a letter of intent to refund KRW 150 million to the Plaintiff by September 9, 2003 (Evidence A 4; hereinafter “instant letter”).
However, the defendants are above even after September 9, 2003, which is the agreed date under the letter of this case.