건물명도
1. The Defendant shall order the Plaintiff to order the building indicated in the attached list.
2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.
3...
1. On April 30, 2016, the Plaintiff: (a) leased a building listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant building”) to the Defendant on or around April 30, 2016, with a lease deposit of KRW 20 million; (b) monthly rent of KRW 170 million; and (c) from April 30, 2016 to April 29, 2018; and (d) the fact that the said lease contract was terminated due to the expiration of the lease term does not conflict between the parties; or (e) can be recognized by comprehensively taking into account all the arguments stated in the separate sheet Nos. 1 and 2.
According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to order the plaintiff to order the building of this case, except in extenuating circumstances.
2. The Defendant’s assertion argues that, after leasing the instant building, the building of this case, the Plaintiff paid KRW 24.8 million to the Plaintiff as the cost of the instant facilities, and the Plaintiff invested in the facilities newly purchased at home and home, the instant building cannot be ordered until the facility was returned.
However, there is no evidence to acknowledge the defendant's above assertion.
Even if the defendant's assertion is true, according to the evidence No. 1, it is acknowledged that the lessee has agreed to restore the building of this case to its original state and return it upon the termination of the lease contract at the time of the above lease contract. This is an agreement to waive the right to demand reimbursement of beneficial cost.
In addition, there is no evidence to acknowledge the fact that the object of the claim is the requirement for establishing the right to purchase the attached article, such as the fact that the facilities subject to the claim are attached to the building of this case even if the defendant's right to purchase the attached article
Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.
3. The plaintiff's claim for the conclusion is justified and acceptable.