건물인도 등
1. The Defendants deliver to the Plaintiff (Appointeds) and the designated parties the buildings listed in the attached Table 1.
2. Defendant.
1.The following facts of recognition do not conflict between the Parties:
From September 19, 2013, the building listed in the attached Table 1 list (hereinafter “instant building”) is owned by the Plaintiff (designated parties, hereinafter “Plaintiff”) at the ratio of 1/10 shares, 3/10 shares, 6/10 shares, and 6/10 shares.
B. On November 19, 2015, the Plaintiff and the designated parties (hereinafter “Plaintiffs”) combined with the Plaintiff and the designated parties, and entered into a lease agreement with Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant headquarters”) with the terms that the Plaintiffs may terminate the instant building (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) by setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 300,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 25,000,000 (excluding value-added tax), and from March 1, 2016 to February 28, 2021, on condition that the Plaintiff and the designated parties agreed to lease the instant building to the Defendant’s principal office by adding 20% damages for delay if the rent is in arrears for at least three different occasions (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).
C. Around that time, the head office of the Defendant established the Defendant C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”) on June 9, 2016, and thereafter F directly occupied the instant building.
On September 4, 2017, the Plaintiffs sent a peremptory notice to the Defendant’s head office to the effect that the instant lease agreement is terminated on the grounds that the said three or more vehicles were overdue, and the said peremptory notice reached the Defendant’s head office around that time.
E. Until August 2017, the Defendant’s head office did not pay a total of KRW 182,50,000 as indicated in the “unpaid amount” column in the attached Table 2 list, and the Defendant’s head office did not fully pay a rent thereafter.
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts, the instant lease agreement was lawfully terminated around September 4, 2017 by a peremptory notice containing the Plaintiffs’ intent of termination on the grounds that the Defendant’s headquarters was in arrears with three or more vehicles, following the arrival of the Defendant’s headquarters around September 4, 2017.