건물명도(인도)
1. All appeals filed by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed.
2. Of the appeal costs, the part relating to the Plaintiff’s appeal is the Plaintiff.
1. The reasons for this court's acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the addition of "2. Additional Judgment" as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is citing this as it is in accordance with
2. Additional determination
A. The plaintiff asserts that the judgment of the court of first instance ordering the return of lease deposit and simultaneous performance without explicitly making a simultaneous performance objection in the first instance court is unlawful in violation of the principle of pleading.
However, it is reasonable to view that the defendant, at the first instance court on July 3, 2018, brought a defense of simultaneous performance in the preliminary auction through the preparatory brief on July 3, 2018. Even if it is not so, the appellate court, as the continuation of the first instance court in civil litigation, and as long as it is obvious in the record that the defendant raised a defense of simultaneous performance in this court, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.
B. The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that “The amount of all the claims owed by the Plaintiff against the Defendant under a lease agreement shall be deducted from the lease deposit amount of KRW 239,675,00 which the first instance court ordered simultaneous performance. In addition, the Plaintiff, a public institution, naturally, seeks to return the balance of the lease deposit after deducting the said amount to the Defendant and to deliver the attached list at the same time, so the Plaintiff, unlike the first instance court, seeks a simple performance judgment against
However, there is no evidence of assertion about the specific content and amount of the claims that the plaintiff has against the defendant under a lease contract, such as unpaid rent and management fee, and the circumstances alleged by the plaintiff alone cannot be viewed as a ground to dismiss the defendant's simultaneous performance defense and to order the defendant to make a simple performance.
Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.
3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit.