점포인도
1. The Defendants jointly point out each of the buildings listed in the attached list 1 to 8, and 1 of the annexed drawings among the buildings listed in the attached list to the Plaintiff.
1. Facts recognized;
A. On October 1, 2017, the Plaintiff leased 20% of the sales of the instant store to Defendant B, on the condition that (a) part 9.9 square meters inboard as indicated in the order (hereinafter “instant store”) was paid monthly rent.
(hereinafter referred to as the "Lease of this case")
Since Defendant B was in arrears with the rent of at least two months for the lease of this case, on March 2, 2018, the Plaintiff sent a content-certified mail to the above Defendant on March 2, 2018, and thereafter, the said content-certified mail reached the Defendant.
C. The Plaintiff is the owner of the building indicated in the order, and the Defendant C occupies the instant store in substance while operating it.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. According to the facts of the above recognition as to the cause of the claim, the lease of this case was terminated by the termination of the plaintiff.
Therefore, the Defendants, who jointly possess the instant store, should deliver the said store to the Plaintiff, who is the lessor of the said lease and the owner of the said store.
B. The Defendants asserted as to the Defendants’ assertion that: (a) the Plaintiff refused to receive rent; (b) the Plaintiff obstructed heating and electricity; (c) removed the interior part of the instant store; and (d) interfered with the operation of the said store by recklessly moving the Defendants’ goods; and (c) committed tort, such as assault and defamation, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim cannot be complied with.
In this regard, there was an act as alleged by the Defendants.
Even if the evidence submitted alone, there is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff had interfered with the operation of the said store before the rent reaches the second period is overdue, and even if each of the remaining arguments is true, it cannot be deemed that the Defendants had the title to possess the said store, and otherwise, the Defendants’ possessory right holder against the said store.