[건물명도(본소)·소유권이전등기말소청구사건(반소)][고집1976민(1),335]
Term of lease in implicitly renewed lease contract;
Since the defendant continued to lease the building after the expiration of the lease term, the lease contract in the case of implied renewal of the lease term is a lease without the agreement of the term.
Articles 639 and 635 of the Civil Act
Supreme Court Decision 66Da1467 delivered on October 25, 1966 (Supreme Court Decision 2308Da 639(4) of the Civil Code No. 483 Decided October 25, 196)
Plaintiff
Defendant
Busan District Court (74 Gohap 991,1859)
The appeal is dismissed.
Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).
The defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff, hereinafter the defendant) ordered the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant, hereinafter the plaintiff) to 41 square meters in total, 22 square meters in total, 3 square meters in total, 41 square meters in total, 41 square meters in total, 3 square meters in total, 41 square meters in total, 41 square meters in total, 3 square meters in total, 24 square meters in third floor and 6 square meters in total among the 18-18 ground table.
Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.
The original judgment shall be revoked.
The plaintiff's main claim is dismissed.
The plaintiff shall implement the procedure for cancellation registration of transfer of ownership on March 10 of the same year, which was completed as the Busan District Court No. 11124 of March 20, 1970 with respect to the above building, to the defendant.
The litigation costs shall be borne by all the plaintiff's principal lawsuit and counterclaims through the first and second trials.
1. Determination as to the principal claim;
From among the 18-18 table, the fact that Busan Central District Court No. 11124 on March 20, 1970 on the receipt of registration No. 11124 on March 20, 197 for the registration of the transfer of ownership in the name of the plaintiff and the fact that the registration of the transfer of ownership has been made on March 10, 197 on the ground of the sale on March 10, 197, as to the three-story house and the warehouse building of No. 4986 and the warehouse of No. 414, 41, 41, 41, 34, and 68.
The defendant's above building is owned by the defendant 8,568,593, and the registration of transfer of the plaintiff's ownership was made under the above 100,000 won, and the above claim is extinguished without filing an urgent order for stabilization and growth. Therefore, even if it is not so, the security right of the above real estate has been extinguished several times from October 21, 197, and it was appropriated for the above defendant's debt 21,00,000 won for the above 70,00 won for the above 10,000 won, 70,000 won for 10,000 won for 20,00 won for 10,000 won for 20,000 won for 30,00 won for 5,00 won for 10,000 won for 60,00 won for 20,000 won for 10,000 won for 7,000 won for each of the above real estate.
In addition, the defendant defense that the above lease agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant is invalid because it is a false declaration of intention that the above lease agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant was concluded. However, there is no other evidence to acknowledge it other than the result of the defendant's personal examination at the original court and the trial that the party member did not believe.
Therefore, after the termination of the above lease, the above lease contract was implicitly renewed since the defendant continued to use the above building, and the renewed lease contract was a lease without the agreed term. As to the plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff who agreed to order the plaintiff until December 31, 1973 or April 30, 1974, or the plaintiff notified the termination of the lease contract on March 27, 1974, it is not sufficient to recognize the plaintiff's witness's testimony. The plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's witness's testimony is not sufficient to prove it, and there was a notice of the termination of the above lease on September 9, 1974, which is obvious from the record that it is the delivery date of this case, and the above lease contract was legally terminated on March 9, 1975 after six months from the same, the defendant is also obligated to order the plaintiff to order the above building.
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim on the merits is justified.
2. Judgment on the counterclaim
Since the above building is owned by the defendant, and the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the plaintiff was made as a security for the defendant's obligation to borrow 8,568,593 Won, as seen earlier, the above secured obligation was extinguished because the plaintiff did not report the bonds issued by the Emergency Order Office for the Stabilization and Growth of the economy with respect to the above claim, and even if that is not so, the plaintiff would appropriate the above building for the defendant's obligation by borrowing 21,00,000 won from the non-party national bank as security, so the above secured obligation should be extinguished, and the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the plaintiff with respect to the above real estate should be cancelled. However, although the above plaintiff's registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the plaintiff was not made as a bond security, and it was made pursuant to the sales contract between the plaintiff and the defendant, the plaintiff
3. Ultimately, the plaintiff's principal claim is reasonable, and the defendant's counterclaim is dismissed without merit. Since the original judgment is just, since the defendant's appeal is unfair, it is dismissed by Article 384 of the Civil Procedure Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 95 and 89 of the same Act with respect to the burden of litigation costs.
Judges Lee Jong-dae (Presiding Judge)