건물인도 등
1. The defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff)'s appeal is dismissed.
2. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff)’s counterclaim raised at the trial is dismissed.
The reasoning for the court’s explanation on the instant case is that the instant lease agreement was terminated on October 8, 2014 by the Defendant on the ground that the instant lease agreement was terminated on the ground that the instant lease agreement was delayed, and that the instant lease agreement was terminated on October 8, 2014.
"Additional" is added, and it is also accepted by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, since the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the defendant addss the judgment as stated in the following 2.
The gist of the Defendant’s assertion is that C succeeds to the instant lease agreement at the time of sale of the instant building, and the Plaintiff succeeded to the lessor’s status of the said lease agreement.
As alleged earlier, C’s termination of the instant lease agreement was null and void or withdrawn, and thus cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s claim, and even if the termination is recognized, the Defendant cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s claim until the deposit for lease is refunded from the Plaintiff.
In light of the following facts: (a) the Plaintiff asserted that, while selling and selling the instant building in the preparatory brief dated April 20, 2015, the Plaintiff agreed with C to refund the deposit money of the Defendant between C and C; (b) the Plaintiff paid KRW 5 million equivalent to the deposit for lease after the first instance judgment was rendered; (c) however, in light of the fact that C sent the instant lease contract to C as a lessor on October 8, 2014 on the date following the date following the conclusion of the sales contract with the Plaintiff, it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff succeeded to the instant lease contract; (d) there is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise; and (e) the said agreement to return the deposit can only be deemed as merely a performance acceptance.
Therefore, the defendant's argument is without merit.
The defendant.