A. (1) On July 27, 2016, Defendant B concluded a lease agreement on the instant building between E and the co-owners of the part indicated in the order (hereinafter “instant building”) among the real estate listed in the separate sheet on July 27, 2016, and received the said building around that time. Defendant B did not pay a rent exceeding two months thereafter by October 27, 2019.

(2) On November 29, 2018, the Plaintiff acquired ownership of the instant building and succeeded to the lessor’s status under the said lease agreement, and notified the termination of the lease agreement around August 2019 on the ground that the said lease was overdue.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap No. 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleading

B. (1) According to the above facts of recognition, the above lease contract was lawfully terminated due to the delinquency in rent of not less than two months by Defendant B, and the Defendant B is obligated to deliver the building of this case to the Plaintiff.

(2) As to this, Defendant B currently occupies the instant building by Defendant C, and he did not directly occupy the said building, and thus, asserted that the Plaintiff’s claim is unreasonable.

However, since Defendant C is residing in the above building with Defendant B’s consent, it cannot be deemed that Defendant B was disqualified from indirect possession of the above building, and where Defendant C seeks to transfer real estate under an agreement, such as a lease agreement, rather than ownership, as a claim for this part, the other party is not limited to direct occupant (Supreme Court Decision 2014Da50203, 50210 Decided December 11, 2014), and the above assertion by Defendant B is unreasonable.

2. Determination as to Defendant C

A. The right to request the issuance of a building based on the ownership of the building of this case on the ground that the defendant without title occupies the building of this case

(b) Judgment on deemed confession (Articles 150 (3) and 208 (3) 2 of the Civil Procedure Act);

3. If so, all of the claims of this case are reasonable.