상가건물명도등
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1...
Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the statements and arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7 (including household numbers), the plaintiff leased the building listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as "the building in this case") to the defendant on May 30, 2015, with the lease deposit of KRW 10 million, monthly rent of KRW 1.2 million, and the lease period of KRW 1.2 million from May 30, 2015 to May 30, 2017, and then delivered it around that time, the defendant did not pay rent for November and December, 2015, and the defendant did not pay rent for more than two months after July 2016, the copy of the complaint in this case stating that the lease contract is terminated on the grounds of delay in payment of rent for more than two years of the plaintiff, and the defendant is recognized to possess the building in this case until now.
Therefore, the lease contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is terminated on September 21, 2016, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff, barring any special circumstance.
In addition, the defendant is obligated to return to the plaintiff the unpaid rent and the amount equivalent to the rent for occupation and use of the building of this case after the termination of the lease contract, and the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the amount equivalent to the annual 15% interest rate under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from November 1, 2016 to the date of full payment, the amount of the rent for December, 2015, the amount of the rent for 240,000 won (not the value-added tax was paid at that time) and the amount of the rent for 27,000 won (not the value-added tax was paid at that time) and the amount of the rent for 27,000 won, which the plaintiff sought after the payment of the rent for the modification of the claim from November 1, 2016 to the date of full payment.
However, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff is not entitled to enter into a lease contract because it is merely a truster who entrusted the land trust company to the land trust company of this case.