건물 인도 및 부당이득 반환 청구의 소
1. The Defendants indicated the “real estate indication” column in the list of real estate by Defendant 3, respectively, to the Plaintiff.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. From around 2002, L Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “L”) leased each building listed in the attached Table 2 (hereinafter “former Market”) owned by the Plaintiff as a MM market (hereinafter “M market”) to L Co., Ltd., and L Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “L”), a person who established a wholesale market under Article 22 of the Act on Distribution and Price Stabilization of Agricultural and Fishery Products (hereinafter “Agricultural and Fishery Products Distribution and Price Stabilization Act, managed the leased market buildings by subleting them to the merchants of the old market, and operated the M market. The Plaintiff and L promoted promoted the market modernization project to solve various problems caused by the deterioration during the period of contract extension and continued the lease relationship. Accordingly, the term of the lease on May 31, 2020 shall be extended according to the Plaintiff’s circumstances, and the term of the contract may be adjusted according to the Plaintiff’s circumstances, and if necessary for the modernization project, the contract may be terminated in whole or in part.
B. The Defendant A, B, C, E, G, I, and J are sub-lessees who possess the pertinent store from L to each other as indicated in the “real estate indication” column in the “real estate indication” column in the attached Table 3 of the previous market building by the Defendant, and Defendant D, F, H, and K are those who jointly possess the said store with the sub-lessees.
[In particular, in relation to Defendant E and F, Defendant E submitted a written application for change of name to the effect that “Defendant E waives the business at the above store and applies for change of name in the name of Defendant F, the actual business operator.” Defendant F and M market N also submitted the actual business confirmation to the effect that “Defendant F is the actual business operator at the above store” on the same day L. However, according to the execution protocol of April 27, 2016 of the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2016Kahap209-209, the Plaintiff filed against the said Defendants, and filed against the said Defendants, the pertinent store at the time of execution by Defendant E.