beta
(영문) 수원지방법원안산지원 2019.05.15 2018가단70199

건물명도(인도)

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. On February 23, 2015, the Defendant leased the lease period from C to February 23, 2016, setting the lease period from February 23, 2015 to February 23, 2016, and leased the real estate indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant store”).

The Plaintiff purchased the instant store from C and completed the registration of ownership transfer on March 3, 2016.

On March 23, 2016, the Plaintiff leased the instant store to the Defendant by setting the lease term from February 23, 2016 to February 23, 2017 (hereinafter “instant lease”). After the expiration of the said lease term, the instant lease contract was implicitly renewed.

The Defendant expressed his intent to renew the instant lease agreement during the pleadings of the instant case.

[Reasons for Recognition] A without dispute, A(=A), A5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Assertion and determination

A. On August 25, 2018, the Commercial Building Rebuilding Committee was established to reconstruct a commercial building in which the Plaintiff’s assertion of this case was located and resolved to promote reconstruction.

On October 21, 2018, the Plaintiff explained to the Defendant of the promotion of rebuilding and expressed his/her intent to terminate the instant lease agreement, and the Defendant decided to deliver the instant store by January 31, 2019.

As above, the instant lease agreement was terminated by agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.

Even if the Defendant requires the renewal of the instant lease agreement, it constitutes “the need to recover possession of a building for the purpose of removing or rebuilding all or most of the buildings in accordance with Article 10(1)7 of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act” and thus, it is rejected.

B. There is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to terminate the instant lease agreement around October 21, 2018.

There is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff specifically notified the Defendant of the removal or reconstruction plan including the construction time and required period at the time of the conclusion of the instant lease agreement, and thus, the Plaintiff’s refusal to renew the contract.