임대차보증금
1. All appeals filed by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are borne by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).
1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, except for adding the following judgments to the court of first instance, No. 6 of the court of first instance as to the newly asserted matters in the court of first instance, and therefore, it is consistent with the reasoning of the court of first instance pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
【Supplementary Decision】
D. 1) As long as the Plaintiff did not obtain the opposing power stipulated in the Housing Lease Protection Act or the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act, the Plaintiff’s assertion is unable to respond to the Plaintiff’s claim premised on the Defendant’s succession to a lessor status from C. 2) In addition, the Plaintiff’s domicile of the instant leased building is “No. 102 underground floor of the E-building located in Jincheon-gun, Jincheon-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun,” whereas the Plaintiff’s domicile indicated in the Plaintiff’s report report card of foreign nationality Koreans is “No. 102 E-Gu, 102 located in Jincheon-gun, Jincheon-gun, North
However, in full view of the following circumstances, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1-2 and the purport of all pleadings, i.e., the defendant acquired the ownership of the leased building of this case by purchasing the leased building of this case from C on July 12, 2012 as his father and wife, and thereafter, the defendant sent to the plaintiff a certificate of the purport that C requested the payment of the rent of June 24, 2013, or sent the certificate of the contents containing his intent to refuse the renewal of the lease contract on June 7, 2015, it cannot be seen that there was any trace of raising any objection. ② Moreover, the defendant sought restitution of expenses against the plaintiff or sought restitution of unjust enrichment on the premise that he succeeded to the lessor status through a counterclaim during the proceeding of the lawsuit of this case, and ③ even if the defendant submitted the counterclaim to the plaintiff on July 7, 2015.