[점포명도청구사건][하집1984(4),390]
1. Claim for reimbursement of necessary and beneficial expenses to the duty of restitution;
b. Examples of appurtenances specified in Article 646 of the Civil Act;
1. The contract was concluded to remove the leased term at the expiration of the lease term and restore it to its original state, and even if the contract was renewed thereafter, it is agreed to waive the right to demand reimbursement of the necessary cost and beneficial cost, insofar as the condition remains.
2.Electric facilities, ventilation facilities, and cooling towers for air conditioners and air conditioners of buildings under the consent of the lessors for commercial convenience, and pipes facilities are accessories thereto.
Articles 203, 626, and 646(1) of the Civil Act
Supreme Court Decision 78Da810, 811 Decided September 12, 1978, 78Da810, 811 Decided November 24, 1981, 80Da320, 321 decided June 7, 1977 (Gong672No. 62), 77Da50, 51 decided September 7, 197 (Article 646, Article 685 of the Civil Act)
Long-term Nets
Person with the highest interest;
The defendant shall receive 11,470,390 won from the plaintiff at the same time, order the real estate recorded in the attached list, and shall pay 1,500,000 won per month from April 1, 1984 to the completion date of name.
The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.
The litigation costs shall be thirty-one-one-one-one-one-one, and the remainder shall be borne by the defendant respectively.
Paragraph (1) may be provisionally executed.
The Defendant ordered the Plaintiff to order the real estate stated in the attached list and paid the Plaintiff money at the rate of KRW 1,650,000 per month from April 1, 1984 to the completion of order.
The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant and a declaration of provisional execution.
In full view of the facts that the building in the attached list is owned by the Plaintiff and is occupied and used by the Defendant from the Plaintiff, and there is no dispute between the parties, and as to the establishment thereof, Gap evidence Nos. 3 and 4 (each monthly rent contract), Gap evidence Nos. 5-1, 2 (Notice and Special Mail Receipt) in the facts of receipt by the Defendant, and Gap evidence Nos. 5-1, 300,000, monthly rent Nos. 1,100, and monthly rent No. 1,000, and 12-month period from March 24, 1982, and the defendant's testimony at the expiration of the lease period of 1,300,000, and the defendant's testimony at the expiration of the lease period of 1,300,000, and the defendant's testimony at the expiration of the lease period of 1,300,0000,000 won and 13,000,000 won.
Since the defendant, while running a restaurant by leasing a new building of this case with the plaintiff's consent, invested an amount equivalent to 15,600,000 won in a soundproof device, floor, and a ecke with an inner facility with the plaintiff's consent, it is re-able that the plaintiff agreed to remove the part of the building at the time of the contract to restore it to its original state at the time of the contract. Thus, in full view of the defendant's testimony of the witness ore, appraisal of the appraiser's best seat, and the result of on-site verification of the party members, the fact that the defendant leased the building of this case and used the internal facility necessary for the restaurant business, but it is necessary for the defendant to use the facility necessary for the restaurant business, but it is not a beneficial expense, and it is also necessary for the defendant to waive the above Gap's statement of the evidence No. 3 and No. 4, and the initial testimony of the witness's heating lease agreement, and even if the contract expires, the defendant's removal of the building of this case would be contrary to the agreement.
Meanwhile, in full view of the evidence cited above, the Defendant, a lessor of the instant building under the consent of the Plaintiff, attached facilities, such as electric facilities, ventilation facilities, and cooling towers for air conditioners, and pipes thereof, for the convenience of the use of the instant building. The Defendant’s right to purchase the attached facilities within the scope of recognition as above, on the grounds that electric facilities were installed in gold 589,050 won, ventilation facilities, air conditioners, and pipes for air conditioners, and the amount of KRW 1,470,390 in total as KRW 881,340,00. The other goods of the Defendant’s owner are difficult to be recognized as attached facilities for the convenience of the use of the instant building, and there is no evidence consistent with the Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant installed the attached facilities equivalent to KRW 16,80,000,000 in addition, so the Defendant’
Therefore, a sales contract is established between the original and the Defendant for the attached appurtenances recognized as the exercise of the right to purchase the attached appurtenances, and the Defendant has the right to claim KRW 1,470,390 for the purchase price according to the exercise of the said right to purchase the attached appurtenances, and the said obligation to pay the purchase price and the duty to clarify the instant building are in the simultaneous performance relationship.
Next, the fact that the plaintiff did not pay KRW 10,00,000 to the defendant for the lease deposit of the building of this case does not conflict between the parties, and the defendant's obligation to specify the real estate is concurrently performed. Therefore, the above simultaneous performance defense of the defendant is justified.
Meanwhile, according to the above facts, the defendant shall occupy and use the building of this case without any title from April 1, 1984 after the lease period expires, and due to this, the defendant shall obtain a profit equivalent to the rent and shall cause damage to the plaintiff, and the amount of rent of KRW 1,500,000 per month shall be exceeded, as seen above, and no other counter-proof shall be raised.
Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay the amount equivalent to KRW 1,470,390, a sum of KRW 11,470,390, and KRW 11,470,390 from the plaintiff to the time of ordering the building of this case from April 1, 1984 to the time of ordering from April 1, 1984. Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed, and the costs of lawsuit are dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the application of Article 89, Article 92 of the Civil Procedure Act and Article 6 (1) 2 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings with respect to the Declaration of Provisional Execution.
Judge Lee Jae-soo (Presiding Judge)