부동산인도
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On March 13, 2013, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with C on the lease deposit of KRW 30 million, monthly rent of KRW 600,000,000, and the period from March 22, 2013 to March 22, 2015, with the delivery of the said real estate by delivery at that time.
B. On November 27, 2013, the Plaintiff purchased the instant real estate from C and completed the registration of ownership transfer on December 9, 2013.
C. On December 17, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant on the lease deposit amounting to KRW 30 million, monthly renting KRW 600,000,000, and the lease term from March 22, 2013 to March 22, 2015 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). The Defendant continued to engage in the business of the Vice Minister on the said real estate.
On October 14, 2014, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a certificate of content that “the instant real estate was returned to the Defendant on March 22, 2015, the expiration date of the period,” and the said certificate was served to the Defendant around that time.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-1, Gap evidence 3-1, Eul evidence 3-2, Eul evidence 4, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The parties' assertion
A. Since the Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant lease agreement expired on March 22, 2015, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant real estate to the Plaintiff.
B. The Defendant asserted that the instant lease contract was renewed on January 13, 2015, which was within the period stipulated in the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act (amended by Act No. 12042, Aug. 13, 2013; amended by May 13, 2015; hereinafter “the Commercial Building Lease Act”) and demanded the renewal of the instant lease contract to the Plaintiff on January 13, 2015, the Defendant held the right to lease the instant real estate by March 22, 2017, since the lease contract was concluded again under the same condition as the instant lease under the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act.
3. We examine the judgment.