건물명도(인도) 등
1. Each counterclaim claim against the counterclaim defendant is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit incurred by a counterclaim;
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On June 18, 2012, the counterclaim Defendant leased the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D building and 105 (hereinafter “instant store”) to the Lessee, and concluded a lease agreement with the Lessee on June 25, 2014, respectively, with the lease agreement on the instant store, the lease deposit was set at KRW 100 million per month, KRW 5.4 million per month, and the lease period from June 18, 2014 to June 17, 2015.
(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). B.
On June 2, 2016, Defendant B provided notification to the Counterclaim on the effect that the instant lease contract was renewed once and the maturity of the lease term was agreed on June 17, 2016. As such, Defendant B provided notification to the effect that the instant store was delivered by the said date, and the said notification reached the Counterclaim on June 3, 2016.
C. On December 14, 2016, the counterclaim Defendant filed the instant principal suit seeking the delivery of the instant store against the Counterclaim Plaintiff on the ground that the instant lease was terminated, and withdrawn the principal suit on June 21, 2017, which was to receive the said store from the Counterclaim Plaintiff, around June 21, 2017.
On April 7, 2017, the Lessee entered into a contract with E to transfer the right to operate the said store by setting the premium of KRW 60 million with respect to the instant store, and received the down payment of KRW 6 million from E on the same day, and returned the said money to E on April 11, 2017.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 and 2, Eul evidence 3, Eul evidence 4-1 and Eul evidence 4-2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The Counterclaim Plaintiff’s assertion that the Counterclaim Plaintiff was entitled to receive the premium on the said store from E to become a new lessee of the instant store, but the Counterclaim Defendant demanded that E be a significantly high-amount vehicle, obstructed the Counterclaim Defendant from receiving the premium, and thereby caused damage to the Counterclaim Plaintiff.
Therefore, the counterclaim defendants jointly and severally are the counterclaims as damages under Article 10-4 (1) 3 of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act.