임차권 양도에 대한 동의
1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant regarding the plaintiff's conjunctive claim shall be revoked.
2. The above-mentioned cancellation part.
1. Scope of the judgment of this court;
A. In the first instance court, the Plaintiff primarily sought “the Plaintiff’s declaration of consent to transfer the right to lease of the apartment in this case” and sought “the Plaintiff’s declaration of consent to transfer the right to lease of the apartment in this case to B,” and the first instance court rejected the Plaintiff’s primary claim and accepted the conjunctive claim.
B. Since only the Defendant appealed against this, the subject of this Court’s trial is limited to the Plaintiff’s preliminary claim.
2. Basic facts
A. On February 28, 2006, pursuant to Article 16 of the former Housing Act (amended by Act No. 7959 of May 24, 2006), the Defendant approved a public construction rental apartment construction project plan for the E block 21,437 square meters from the Sungnam market in Sungnam-si, and constructed a public construction rental apartment for ten-year rental period on the above land.
B. On May 23, 2006, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant to set the lease deposit amount of KRW 215,687,000 for the instant apartment and KRW 494,00 for monthly rent (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).
C. The Plaintiff resided in the instant apartment and worked in the incentive Engineering Co., Ltd. located in 58-15, Daegu Suwon-ro 2013 (Dong), Daegu-ro 25-15 (Dong) (hereinafter referred to as “inducing Engineering”), and resided in the winter house located in Daegu-ro and resided in the instant apartment on the weekend or holiday.
[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 6, Eul evidence 1, the purport of whole pleadings
3. The Rental Housing Act and the Enforcement Decree of the Rental Housing Act related to this case are as shown in the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes.
4. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion on the conjunctive claim is from around 2013 to Daegu, and the Plaintiff has moved from the apartment of this case to a distance of at least 40km in a straight line.