건물명도
1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.
Purport of claim and appeal
1.
1. The reasons for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows, except for the addition of the following “2. Additional Judgment” with respect to the allegations emphasized or added by the Defendants in this court, and thus, they are cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Additional determination
A. Summary of the Defendants’ assertion: (a) there was an agreement between the Plaintiff and D to guarantee the instant lease term for 20 years.
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim based on the premise that the ten-year term of the lease contract of this case expires is against the above agreement or constitutes a violation of the principle of good faith or an abuse of rights.
② Defendant B obtained the Plaintiff’s consent, and properly sublet Defendant C the part of the restaurant of the instant building.
Even without the Plaintiff’s consent, unlike the prohibition of an unauthorized lease under Article 9 of the instant lease agreement even without the Plaintiff’s consent, the Plaintiff allowed the sub-lease to a third party without a written consent during the lease period, and such sub-lease cannot be deemed as an act of worship against the Plaintiff.
Therefore, since such sub-lease is lawful, the Plaintiff cannot refuse the renewal of the instant lease, as well as the instant lease agreement was legally renewed due to the Plaintiff’s failure to notify of the rejection of renewal under the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act.
B. Determination 1) According to Gap evidence Nos. 2 and Eul evidence Nos. 11 regarding the assertion of the agreement on the guarantee of the 20-year lease term, the rent of the instant lease contract was increased to a total of KRW 200 million (i.e., KRW 20 million per annum x 10 years) from a total of KRW 1.25 million from a modified contract on February 5, 2009 (i.e., KRW 20 million per annum x 10 years), and the fact-finding, which constructed the instant building, promised to guarantee the 20-year lease term at the time of the plaintiff (Evidence No. 11).