건물명도(인도)
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Basic facts
A. From November 2014 to November 24, 2016, the Defendant leased the instant store, among the instant buildings owned by C, KRW 25,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 700,000 (Additional Tax), and the term of lease from November 25, 2014 to November 24, 2016.
(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). The instant lease agreement was implicitly renewed.
B. The Plaintiff purchased the instant building from C and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the future of the Plaintiff on August 9, 2019 as the registration office of the Gwangju District Court No. 150727, August 27, 2019.
C. In addition, D Co., Ltd. completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of D Co., Ltd. as of August 27, 2019, received on August 27, 2019, by reason of trust contract on August 26, 2019.
On the other hand, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the instant building on June 27, 2019 and on August 30, 2019, etc. after concluding the instant building sales contract with C, and sent to the Defendant a certificate that “the Plaintiff would reconstruct the instant building, and thus, the Plaintiff cannot extend or renew the instant lease contract. When the instant lease contract is terminated on November 24, 2019, the Plaintiff sent it to the Defendant, and the Defendant received it respectively.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3 (including provisional number), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. On November 24, 2019, the Plaintiff sought the Defendant to order the instant store and pay an unjust enrichment equivalent to the monthly rent.
However, the fact that the ownership of the building of this case, including the store of this case, has been transferred to D Co., Ltd. is identical to the above recognition, and the status of the lessor has been transferred to D Co., Ltd. under Article 3(2) of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act. Thus, the plaintiff, not the owner, but the lessor, has