beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff falling under the following order for payment shall be revoked.
The defendant.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On June 11, 2012, D and C representing the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant to lease the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) from the Defendant (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) by setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 100 million, KRW 2 million per month, and the period from June 11, 2012 to June 10, 2017 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). On June 11, 2012, the Plaintiff paid the Defendant the said lease deposit amount of KRW 100 million and used the said real estate transferred from the said time.
B. As the Plaintiff did not pay the rent from January 2014, the above C sent a content-certified mail on March 26, 2014, stating that “The instant lease contract is terminated on the ground of overdue rent,” on behalf of the Defendant, to D, who is the Plaintiff’s agent, and around that time, the content-certified mail sent to D.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination as to the cause of action
A. The plaintiff asserted that the contract of this case was terminated by C's declaration of termination on behalf of the defendant, and the defendant is obligated to refund the remaining lease deposit deposit 74 million won after deducting the amount of delayed rent or unjust enrichment from 100 million won until January 31, 2015, which the plaintiff completed the business of the real estate of this case, from the deposit deposit 100 million won. Accordingly, the defendant asserts that C has no right of representation to terminate the contract of this case, and that the above declaration of termination was withdrawn as it reaches the plaintiff at the same time by delivering the content-certified mail of this case and the content-certified mail on the premise of the continuation of the contract of this case.
B. (1) Determination (1) In light of the following circumstances recognized as a comprehensive consideration of the overall purport of the pleadings in each entry in subparagraphs 6-1 and 2 as to the existence of Gap’s power of representation: