beta
(영문) 서울고등법원 2016.05.27 2016나2015035

부도산명도 등 청구의 소

Text

1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

Purport of claim and appeal

1.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of the building indicated in the attached list of real estate (hereinafter “instant building”).

B. On May 30, 2014, the Plaintiff concluded a lease agreement with F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”) and with respect to the instant building, KRW 100 million, KRW 9 million per month of rent (excluding value-added tax), and from June 9, 2014 to June 8, 2015, the Plaintiff agreed that the instant building may not be sub-leased, leased, or provided security without the lessor’s consent.

C. The Plaintiff received the above lease deposit from F, and delivered the instant building to F on June 9, 2014.

On June 25, 2014, the Plaintiff agreed to sublease the instant building to F’s representative director B upon F’s request. The Plaintiff, F, B, and E (hereinafter “E”) limited the said sub-lease to book publishing G, H Museum, and E (hereinafter “E”), and the said lease agreement entered into with F is equally applicable to B, the sub-lease, and the sub-lease also agreed to be extinguished immediately upon the expiration of the said lease term.

E. F sublet the instant building to D on June 9, 2014, and the underground floor part of the instant building is currently occupied by D.

F. B, in collaboration with the J, which used the position of the representative director of E as the internal director of E who operates the Kapet, B operated the Kapet on the first floor of the instant building, and F sublet up approximately 20 square meters of the instant building to J.

G. C was appointed as the representative director of E on July 6, 2015.

H. The Plaintiff was seeking to enforce the provisional disposition for the transfer of possession against the obligor F with the obligor F as the High Government District Court Decision 2015Kahap5079 on June 30, 2015. However, at the time, K’s employees were jointly occupied by Defendant B and J, and the second floor was not jointly occupied by F, J, Defendant B, and E, and the second floor was not carried out.

I. The plaintiff is again.