건물명도
1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:
The Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) is from the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) 9,603.
A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On September 12, 2013, the Plaintiff leased real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) to the Defendant as the lease period from September 28, 2013 to September 27, 2015, the deposit amount of KRW 10 million, monthly rent of KRW 350,000 (hereinafter “instant lease contract”), and on September 28, 2013, the Plaintiff handed over the instant real estate to the Defendant on September 28, 2013.
B. On October 28, 2013, the Defendant paid the Plaintiff the rent once and requested the termination of the said lease due to personal circumstances.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to terminate the said lease agreement with the terms of “the condition that the Defendant seeks a new lessee,” and the Defendant requested C who arranged the said lease agreement to seek a new lessee, and thereafter, the Plaintiff and the Defendant went to the director of the instant real estate at that time.
C. After that, on October 31, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with D on the instant real estate as a broker of C, and received a down payment from D.
However, there was a dispute between the Plaintiff and D on November 21, 2013 between the Plaintiff and D, giving up the down payment that D paid to the Plaintiff and cancelling the lease contract.
C introduced the instant real estate to a new lessee to lease the instant real estate even after the termination of the lease agreement with D, but the Plaintiff was unable to arrange a new lease agreement without contact with the Plaintiff, and continued to return the key of the instant real estate to the Defendant’s wife, who did not contact with the Plaintiff.
E. The Defendant, while living in another place and managing the instant real estate, such as paying management expenses through the wife’s Nam, and on December 11, 2013, as the Plaintiff’s domicile address located in the instant lease agreement was unilaterally cut off and did not make any reply, and thus, the Defendant requested the answer by December 23, 2013, and there is no answer by that date.