beta
Text
1. Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) C: (a) KRW 17,670,000 on the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and its related thereto from June 19, 2014 to December 17, 2014.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On May 17, 2010, the Plaintiff leased the entire fourth floor of the instant leased object (hereinafter “the instant leased object”) from Defendant C with the following content:
(hereinafter “Lease Contract”). Lease deposit: KRW 30,00,000, monthly rent of KRW 1,700,000 (payment on May 30, 201), KRW 150,000 each month for management expenses for management expenses (payment on May 17, 2010), and the period for which value-added tax shall be borne by the lessee from May 17, 2010 to November 30, 2012.
B. The Plaintiff has operated the leased object of the instant case as Taekwondo.
C. On March 20, 2014, the Plaintiff notified Defendant C of the termination of the instant lease agreement without paying a difference from February 2014, and the same year.
4. 5. The leased object of this case was delivered to Defendant C. D.
The Plaintiff is a person who has failed to pay management expenses from December 201, 201 for the leased object of the instant case. Of the value-added tax (10%) on monthly rent (10%) borne by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff has not paid the aggregate of KRW 2,520,000 per month and KRW 510,000 per month from January 1, 201 to March 201.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2 evidence, Eul 2 and 4 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination on the principal lawsuit and the counterclaim claim
A. According to (i) the part on the claim for the return of the lease deposit against Defendant C (the counterclaim) among the principal claim, the instant lease agreement has been maintained as a non-fixed lease agreement because it was implicitly renewed after November 30, 2012. The Plaintiff, a lessee, notified the termination of the contract on March 20, 2014, and terminated the instant lease agreement around April 20, 2014 after one month thereafter.
(Article 635 of the Civil Act). Therefore, Defendant C, barring any special circumstance, has deducted the secured debt from the lease deposit, to the Plaintiff.