건물명도(인도)
1. The defendant
(a) deliver the real estate listed in the separate sheet;
B. 4.6 million won and this shall be November 2017.
According to the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff and the purport before the oral argument, the owner of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) was the non-party corporation, Dong Young-gu. The Plaintiff leased the instant real estate from Dong Young-gu Co., Ltd. for a two-year contract period around August 17, 192. The lease was renewed after the expiration of the contract period, and the Plaintiff’s mother C entered into a sublease agreement with the Defendant on behalf of the Plaintiff by setting the monthly rent of KRW 100,000 for the instant real estate (hereinafter “the instant sublease”). The Defendant is late January 2014, and the fact that it currently occupies the said real estate was overdue, and it is evident in the record that the complaint of this case, stating the Plaintiff’s declaration of intention that the instant sublease was terminated due to the Defendant’s delinquency in rent, reaches the Defendant on November 29, 2017.
According to the above facts, the sub-lease of this case is deemed to have been lawfully terminated on the grounds of the Defendant’s delinquency in paying two or more rents, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant real estate to the Plaintiff and pay the Plaintiff the overdue rent of KRW 4.6 million in total from January 2, 2014 to October 2017, and to pay damages for delay at the rate of 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from November 30, 2017 to the date following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case, and to pay the overdue rent and unjust enrichment equivalent to the overdue rent of KRW 10,000 per month from November 30, 2017 to the date following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case.
The defendant did not have any longer since the owner of the real estate in this case was a Dong-young Housing Co., Ltd. but the above company was dissolved on December 1995 and no longer existed, and thus the lease agreement between the plaintiff and the above company is no longer effective. Therefore, the sub-lease in this case, which is the premise of the above lease, is no longer effective, and the plaintiff has no right to claim