건물인도 등 청구의 소
1. The Intervenor’s motion for the Intervenor’s participation is permitted.
2. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.
3. The costs of the lawsuit;
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is the owner of the real estate indicated in the attached Form (hereinafter “instant building”).
B. On January 24, 2014, the Plaintiff concluded a lease contract with Defendant B by setting the rental deposit of KRW 150,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 9,000,000 (the conditions for payment on February 30, 201), and the term of the lease from February 1, 2014 to February 1, 2017, with respect to the leased deposit of KRW 367.98 square meters on the first floor of the instant building.
C. On January 24, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendants by setting the lease deposit amounting to KRW 50,000,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 1/2183.99, each of the three floors of the instant building, as between the Defendants and the end of February 1, 2017, with regard to the lease deposit amounting to KRW 50,000 (the condition for payment on the 30th day of each month in separate and subsequent payment of value-added tax), KRW 1,00,000,000 for the Defendant Co., Ltd (hereinafter “Defendant Co. (hereinafter “Defendant Co.”), and the lease agreement between February 1, 2014 and February 1, 2017.
On January 24, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with Defendant B, setting the lease deposit of KRW 100,000,000 for rental deposit of KRW 2,50,000 for the fourth floor of the instant building, monthly rent of KRW 2,50,00 (the conditions for payment on the 30th day of each month in separate and subsequent payment of value-added tax), between February 1, 2014 and February 1, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant lease agreements”).
E. On April 12, 2016, Defendant B paid to the Plaintiff KRW 7,600,000 out of the rent for February 2016, and the Defendants did not pay to the Plaintiff any subsequent rent.
F. On October 17, 2016, the Plaintiff submitted to this court a copy of the complaint containing the intent to notify the termination of each of the instant lease agreements on the grounds of the Defendants’ delinquency in rent, which was finally served on the Defendants.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 4 (including branch numbers, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply), purport of whole pleadings
2. The Plaintiff’s judgment on the legality of the application for intervention is based on the outcome of the instant lawsuit and the law against the Intervenor joining the Defendant.