beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2014.04.30 2012가합107674

가건물철거 등

Text

1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) paid KRW 938,580 to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and its related amount from May 15, 2013 to April 30, 2014.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On May 19, 2010, the Defendant leased from D and E, with a deposit deposit of KRW 18,00,000, monthly rent of KRW 170,000, KRW 1,700,000, and from May 31, 201, the term of lease of KRW 18,000 from May 31, 201 to May 30, 201 (hereinafter “instant lease”). Around that time, the Defendant transferred the instant store and operated a restaurant at a place.

B. The Plaintiffs purchased the instant building and its site from D and E on March 15, 2012, and completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to 1/2 shares among them on May 30, 2012, respectively.

C. At the time of entering into a lease agreement as above, the Defendant had extended the temporary building of 6.68 square meters connected with Alumininzinzinzinszinszinszinszinszinszinszinspins, and the 쇠 pipe 9.47 square meters connected with the building.

The above Aluminium building was a roof of the balcony 2nd floor of the building in combination with the building in this case, and the outer wall of the part abutting on the building in this case was removed from the outer wall of the part abutting on the building in this case, and it was a structure that makes it possible to communicate with each other, and in this case, it was installed a fireproof and kitchen, and used as a kitchen.

The above tent was constructed as a passage connected to Aluminium building in a structure that can see the space between the building and the tent, and was used as a warehouse that stores food materials and office fixtures, while a tent for cooking was also installed.

(hereinafter above) Aluminium a building and a tent D.

On June 2012, the Plaintiffs notified the Defendant that “Around June 2012, the building of this case was to be reconstructed, and the building of this case, which was an obstacle to obtaining approval for use after reconstruction, was removed.” On June 28, 2012, the Defendant, who did not comply therewith, removed the building of this case and the removal thereof.