건물명도(인도)
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
[Claim]
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance is as follows: (a) the term “ July 25, 2017.” of the fourth 15 line of the judgment of the court of first instance as “ July 31, 2017”; (b) the term “witness” of the fourth and fifth 15 lines as “witness witness” is removed as “witness witness of the court of first instance”; and (c) the following two are the same as the ground of the judgment of the court of first instance; and (d) such term is cited in accordance
2. Determination on the additional argument
A. On June 10, 2015, the Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiff leased the instant store from the Plaintiff was F. Even if G was a lessee, G delegated all the rights regarding the lease to F. As such, the Plaintiff was obligated to return the lease deposit to F.
In this situation, the defendant paid the lease deposit amount of KRW 40,00,000 to D designated by F with the consent of the plaintiff, which is ultimately paid to the plaintiff.
B. On June 10, 2015, the Plaintiff and the title holder who entered into a lease agreement with respect to the instant store is G, and the actual store operation is G. Therefore, it is reasonable to view the lessee of the said store as G rather than F.
In addition, in a lawsuit for divorce with G, F claimed KRW 40,00,000 as the active property of G and accepted by the court, the court held that the above store's claim for the return of the lease deposit was the active property of G, and recognized as G property of KRW 301,00,000,000 recognized by G on the grounds that it was not proven that the current status of the lease deposit was unknown. The F claimed the total amount of the lease deposit KRW 40,000,000 as the active property of G. However, G asserted that the lease deposit was overdue, but G asserted that the remainder of the lease deposit was KRW 30,100,000,000,000 recognized by G on the grounds that it was not proven.
In light of the above, 40 million won that the Defendant paid to D cannot be assessed as the refund of the deposit for lease to G.
Therefore, the above argument is not accepted.
3...