건물명도
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the following judgments, thereby citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. The portion to be determined additionally
A. Regarding the assertion that the status of a lessor is not succeeded, 1) The defendant's right of lease alleged by the plaintiff cannot be set up against the claims of seizure in the Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, which is the pertinent tax, and thus, the status of a lessor is not succeeded to the plaintiff pursuant to Article 91 (3) of the Civil Execution Act. 2) Since each registration of seizure in the Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, Incheon Metropolitan City has been made after the defendant acquired the opposing power of the lease in this case, the defendant
The above argument of the different premise is without merit.
B. As to the assertion that the Plaintiff is obligated to return only a part of the deposit, even if the Plaintiff’s obligation to return the deposit is succeeded to the Plaintiff, the scope of succession shall be limited to KRW 209,516,750, which is equivalent to the ratio of the size of each of the instant stores (1,284.74m2) owned by the Defendant to the size of each of the instant stores (578m2,284m2) located in the lease deposit 465,000,000, which is the object of joint lease registered in the lease registration, and the obligation under the third judgment of the Housing Lease Protection Act cannot be deemed to be entirely succeeded to. (2) The transferee of the instant rental house, which is the object of the requirements for counterclaim under the judgment of the Housing Lease Protection Act, succeeds to all the rights and obligations under the lease agreement of the lessor in combination with the ownership of the house (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Da49523, Jan. 17, 2013).