건물명도(인도)
1. The defendant shall receive KRW 80,000,000 from the plaintiff and at the same time, each real estate listed in the attached Table shall be paid to the plaintiff.
1. Around March 8, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant regarding each of the real estate listed in the order (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”) (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with the term of KRW 80 million and the term of lease from March 8, 2017 to March 7, 2019 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). The Plaintiff’s delivery of each of the instant real estate to the Defendant around that time does not dispute between the parties, or can be recognized in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings as stated in subparagraphs A and 3.
According to this, the instant lease contract was terminated upon the expiration of the lease term.
Therefore, the defendant is obligated to deliver each of the real estate of this case, which is the object of the lease, to the plaintiff at the same time receiving KRW 80 million from the plaintiff as the object of the lease, as requested by the plaintiff, unless there is a special reason to the contrary.
2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion
A. The Defendant’s assertion that each of the instant real estate was originally owned by the Defendant.
On September 11, 2012, the Defendant sold to the Plaintiff KRW 575 million.
However, in lieu of part of the above purchase price at the time, the Plaintiff decided to take over 350 million won as collateral obligation of part of the right to collateral security established on each of the instant real property, and accordingly, the Plaintiff paid the Defendant the difference of KRW 225 million (= KRW 575 million – KRW 350 million) as the purchase price, but did not receive the registration of ownership transfer from the Defendant even if the registration was completed.
In the meantime, the Defendant entered into the instant lease agreement with the Plaintiff at a security level for some of the aforementioned unpaid payments, and agreed to continue the instant lease agreement until the payment of KRW 225 million in the balance of the above sales amount, notwithstanding the amount of the deposit money under the said contract, and thus, cannot comply with the Plaintiff’s claim.
B. Determination Doctrine, Gap evidence 1-1, Eul.