건물명도 등
1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.
(a) B (C) is paid KRW 50 million by the Plaintiff and simultaneously entered in the separate sheet.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The real estate indicated in the attached list was owned by D from August 31, 2006. However, D, on June 24, 2010, on the part of 60 square meters in the shop “A” (hereinafter “instant store”) connected in order to each point of 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1, among the 329.82 square meters of the first floor of the said real estate, D received from the Defendant a deposit amount of KRW 50 million, monthly rent of KRW 1.3 million, and the period from June 1, 2010 to June 30, 2015 (hereinafter “instant lease contract”). At that time, D received from the Defendant a deposit amount of KRW 50 million.
B. On December 8, 2013, the Plaintiff purchased real estate listed in the separate sheet from D, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on January 6, 2014.
C. On April 9, 2015, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the refusal to renew the instant lease agreement by mail verifying the content. D.
As of the closing date of pleadings, the Defendant’s prior wife B occupies and uses the instant store as a restaurant.
[Judgment of the court below] Facts without dispute, Gap's evidence of subparagraphs 1 through 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. According to the fact that the Defendant’s duty to deliver the object upon termination of the lease agreement of this case was acknowledged, the Plaintiff is deemed to have leased the leased object under the same conditions as the lease of this case at the expiration of the lease term, on the premise that five years of the lease term guaranteed for the lessee under Article 10(2) of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act has been guaranteed after the Plaintiff succeeded to the status of the lessor under the lease of this case.
Since it was refused to renew the instant lease contract within the period of time, the said lease contract was lawfully terminated at the expiration of the period ( June 30, 2015).
Therefore, the defendant is a special case.