건물명도(인도)
1. The defendant shall receive KRW 80 million from the plaintiff, and at the same time real estate stated in the attached Table to the plaintiff.
1. In light of no dispute between the parties to the agreement or comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in each of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including the provisional number), the plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the defendant, who is the second infant around March 2008, on a deposit amount of KRW 80 million with regard to the real estate listed in the separate sheet owned by the plaintiff (hereinafter "the apartment of this case"), and around that time the apartment of this case was delivered to the defendant, and the plaintiff and the defendant agreed to terminate the above lease agreement around February 20, 2017.
2. Judgment on the main defense of this case
A. The Defendant’s main defense defense Plaintiff prepared a written withdrawal of the lawsuit to the Defendant after the instant lawsuit was filed, which constitutes an agreement to bring an action against the Defendant, and thus, the instant lawsuit is unlawful.
B. According to the evidence Nos. 15 and 16 of the judgment Nos. 15 and 16, the plaintiff is deemed to have signed the letter of withdrawal prepared by the defendant in advance, but the above letter of withdrawal does not contain any content to be deemed to be an agreement, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff and the defendant agreed on the introduction of the lawsuit in this case.
Therefore, the lawsuit of this case is legitimate, and the defendant's defense is without merit.
3. Judgment on the merits
A. According to the facts of the judgment as to the cause of the claim, since the lease contract between the plaintiff and the defendant has been lawfully terminated by the termination thereof, the defendant is obligated to receive KRW 80 million from the plaintiff as requested by the plaintiff and deliver the apartment house of this case to the plaintiff as its owner.
B. The Defendant’s assertion and determination 1 is not only ① the Plaintiff’s donation of the apartment of this case to the Defendant, but also the instant lawsuit is not based on the Plaintiff’s truth, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim of this case is in violation of the good faith principle. ② Even if not, the deposit for the instant apartment is KRW 125 million.