건물명도
1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.
2. The plaintiff's claim (including the part added by this court) is all dismissed.
3...
1. The reasoning for this part of the reasoning is the same as that of the pertinent part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, and thus, this part is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Determination
A. (1) On November 2013, 2013, C leased the instant store to the Defendant; and (2) around April 201, 2014, the Plaintiff is entitled to lease the entire building including the said store (hereinafter “instant building”).
In principle, the Defendant, a lessee of the instant store, cannot assert the validity of the instant lease agreement to the Plaintiff, who newly acquired ownership by purchasing the instant building. 2) The Defendant asserts to the effect that “the Plaintiff succeeded to the status of a lessor under the instant lease agreement from C,” and there is no explicit special agreement on the succession, etc. of the status of a lessor under the name of C and the Plaintiff (Evidence A No. 3) of the real estate sales agreement (Evidence A) written in the name of C and the Plaintiff.
However, the following circumstances revealed by the facts as seen earlier and the evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings, namely, ① the Plaintiff appears not to have raised an objection to the instant lease agreement or demanded the Defendant to conclude a separate lease agreement with the Defendant even after the purchase of the instant building from C, and ② rather, the Plaintiff received money equivalent to the annual rent under the instant lease agreement from the Defendant during the period from November 1, 2014 to October 31, 2016, under the name of the store user fee for the instant store, and the Plaintiff was paid the store user fee for the period from October 31, 2016.
4. 4. A lawsuit was filed against the Defendant seeking the name of the store of this case.
3) The Defendant issued a tax invoice to the Defendant (the item on the tax invoice was indicated as “rent”
3. The plaintiff is the former owner at the time of sale of the building of this case, despite the defendant's request for confirmation during the litigation of this case.