beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff:
A. Defendant B and C: 140,000,000 per each of them, and as regards them:
B. Defendant D is Defendant B and C.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On April 5, 2012, the Plaintiff leased the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) from Defendant B and C on behalf of Defendant B and C as KRW 140,000,000, and the period from June 8, 2012 to June 8, 2014 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”), and paid KRW 140,00,000,000.
B. The terms and conditions of the instant lease agreement are as follows: “The right to collateral security (130,000,000 won in maximum amount of the bond, 130,000,000 won in order of registration) is established; at the same time, the principal is repaid at KRW 20,00,000 in total and at the same time, the registration for reduction is made.”
C. On April 10, 2013, the Plaintiff sent to Defendant B and C a certificate of content that “if the above obligation to register a reduction was not fulfilled by April 30, 2013, the lease agreement will be terminated as of May 1, 2013.” The content certification reached the said Defendants.
Meanwhile, Defendant D, a de facto lessor, agreed with Defendant B and C to refund the instant lease deposit jointly and severally with the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant agreement”).
[Reasons for Recognition] Defendant B and D: The fact that there is no dispute over Defendant C: the entries in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination as to the cause of action
A. The plaintiff asserts that the contract of this case was lawfully terminated on the ground that the contract of this case was lawfully terminated due to the violation of the special agreement of the defendant B and C.
If a lessor fails to fulfill his/her duty to maintain the object in a state necessary for the use and profit-making during the lease period, the lessee may terminate the lease contract due to a default.
However, in the case of this case, even if the above Defendants failed to perform their duty of registration of reduction as stipulated in the special agreement, the Plaintiff could not use or benefit from the real estate in conformity with the purpose.