토지인도
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On May 1, 2018, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with respect to D parking lots located in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seocheon-gu, Incheon, with the terms that the lease deposit is KRW 6,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 1,500,000, and KRW 12 months from the date of delivery of the lease term.
On May 1, 2019, the Plaintiff agreed to renew the above lease agreement for one year on the same terms and conditions as C.
B. On May 9, 2018, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with the Defendant and the Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seocheon-gu, and the F parking lot (hereinafter “instant parking lot”) with a view to paying a monthly rent of KRW 500,000,00, with a view to paying a annual rent to the lessor as a lump sum payment, and to leasing the annual rent from May 1, 2018 to April 30, 2019.
C. After the conclusion of the instant lease agreement, the Defendant installed a container at the entrance of the instant parking lot (hereinafter “instant container”), and operated the instant parking lot from every week to Sundays.
On April 30, 2019, the expiration date of the instant lease agreement, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of his intention to terminate the instant lease agreement, and the Defendant retired from office in the instant parking lot from that time.
E. On November 9, 2019, the Defendant removed the instant container installed in the instant parking lot.
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap Nos. 1, 2, 4, and Eul No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion
A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff sub-leased the instant parking lot from C to the Defendant, and at the time, the Defendant was aware that the Plaintiff would pay C monthly rent of KRW 1,500,000 and leased the instant parking lot.
However, the Defendant did not remove the instant container installed at the entrance of the instant parking lot despite the expiration of the instant lease contract, and the Plaintiff thereafter did so.