건물명도 등
1. The defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff) shall dismiss the counterclaim;
2. The Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) is 100,000.
1. We examine ex officio whether a counterclaim is lawful, based on the determination on the legality of the counterclaim.
(a) The defendant may, only if it does not substantially delay the proceedings, file a counterclaim with the court in which the principal lawsuit is pending not later than the closure of pleadings.
(Article 269(1)(b) of the Civil Procedure Act
With respect to the instant case, the Plaintiff filed a principal suit on January 31, 2012. The Defendant served a duplicate of the principal complaint of this case on February 10, 2012; the first conciliation date and the second date for pleading on the instant principal complaint were followed on March 15, 2013; and the pleadings were concluded on March 15, 2013. The Defendant filed the instant counterclaim on April 13, 2013, which is after the closing of pleadings. The fact that the instant counterclaim was filed at the time when approximately 14 months elapsed since the Defendant was served with the duplicate of the main complaint of this case, is evident in the record.
C. According to the above facts, the counterclaim of this case is deemed to significantly delay the litigation procedures of the principal lawsuit, and it is inappropriate to satisfy the requirements under Article 269(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, and its defects cannot be corrected. Thus, it is dismissed without holding any pleadings pursuant to Articles 270 and 219 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Judgment on the principal lawsuit
A. (i) On June 10, 2004, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant, setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 100 million and the lease deposit period from July 27, 2004 to July 26, 2006 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with the Defendant, wherein the Plaintiff received the full amount of the lease deposit from the Defendant, and delivered the instant real estate to the Defendant.
Luxembourg concluded the instant lease agreement with the Plaintiff, and the Defendant agreed to pay the charge for the Defendant’s water supply at the same time when the Defendant went to directors.
Together, the defendant occupies the real estate of this case until now, and the defendant occupies it.