건물인도 등
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
1. Basic facts
A. On July 1, 2012, the Defendant, among the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 from the Plaintiff on July 1, 2012, leased 60 square meters in the part inside the ship (hereinafter “instant building”) which successively connects each point of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 1, among the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 from the Plaintiff on the first floor and the second floor, with the lease term of KRW 90,000,000 (hereinafter “instant lease contract”), and occupied the instant building.
B. The instant lease agreement was implicitly renewed on June 30, 2014.
C. On August 9, 2016, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a content-certified mail to the effect that “The Plaintiff did not pay the monthly rent for the instant building from several months before, and thus, demanded renewal refusal, payment of overdue rent, and delivery of the instant building.” The Plaintiff again sent the instant building to the effect that “The Plaintiff shall pay the monthly rent in arrears and notify the Plaintiff of the delivery of the instant building by one document.”
Meanwhile, from July 1, 2016, the Defendant did not pay the rent under the instant lease agreement.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of whole pleadings
2. The defendant's defense of violation of jurisdiction was an agreement to have jurisdiction over the Seoul District Court in the event of the occurrence of legal dispute at the time of the lease agreement of this case, and the lawsuit of this case is not unlawful against the jurisdiction agreement of this case.
In full view of the background leading up to the retroactive preparation of the evidence No. 2, the author, and the right to prepare the evidence No. 2, which is recognized in light of the witness C’s partial statement and the purport of the entire pleadings, the evidence is not sufficient to acknowledge that the evidence No. 2 was a valid lease contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the exclusive jurisdiction
The defendant's defense of this case is without merit.
3. Judgment on the merits
A. The Plaintiff’s allegation that the instant lease agreement expired on June 30, 2016.