건물명도(인도)
1. The defendants' appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
1. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. According to the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 4 and the entire arguments, the following facts are acknowledged: (a) since April 3, 2001, real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) was owned by the plaintiff; (b) the lease agreement was made between the plaintiff and D as of February 29, 2016; and (c) the Defendants currently occupied the instant real estate.
According to the above facts, the defendants occupied the real estate of this case and interfere with the plaintiff's exercise of ownership on the real estate of this case.
Therefore, barring special circumstances, the Plaintiff is obligated to leave the real estate of this case.
B. As to this, the Defendants suspended the period of payment of rent, and the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act (hereinafter “Commercial Building Lease Protection Act”) provides that the Plaintiff shall be subject to the suspension of payment of rent.
) The five-year lease period is guaranteed, and the Plaintiff’s claim of this case is unfair and the Defendants are entitled to possess the instant real estate. Thus, the Defendants’ claim is based on the premise that the Defendants entered into a lease agreement with the Plaintiff on the instant real estate, and the Defendants did not enter into a lease agreement with the Plaintiff and the instant real estate (the Defendants initially asserted the lease agreement with the Plaintiff on July 4, 201).
Even if the Plaintiff and the Defendants were to have concluded a rental agreement with respect to the instant real estate, they are deemed as the actual parties.
However, according to the evidence No. 2, No. 4, and No. 8, it is recognized that the overdue rent of the above lease agreement reaches at least three years. In such a case, Articles 10 and 10-4 of the Commercial Building Lease Act are not applicable, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff suspended the deadline for the payment of rent to the Defendants.