건물인도 등
1. The plaintiff's successor's claims are all dismissed.
2. The costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the intervenor succeeding to the plaintiff.
Basic Facts
- On November 12, 2014, the Plaintiffs leased the instant building to the Defendant on the condition that deposit KRW 50,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 3,300,000 (including value-added tax), and the lease period from December 1, 2014 to December 1, 2016 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).
- The Defendant operated the restaurant in the instant building.
- On October 21, 2016, the Plaintiffs sent to the Defendant a certificate of content that the instant lease agreement will not be renewed upon the expiration of December 1, 2016, and reached the Defendant around that time.
- As to this, on October 25, 2016, the Defendant sent a certificate of content to the Plaintiffs requesting an extension of two-year period of the instant lease agreement, and reached the Plaintiffs on October 26, 2016.
- On November 3, 2016, the Plaintiffs filed the instant lawsuit seeking the delivery of the instant building against the Defendant on December 15, 2016, while expressing the Defendant’s intent to refuse to renew the instant contract.
- The Intervenor purchased the instant building on October 26, 2016 from the Plaintiffs, the owner of the instant building, and completed the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the Intervenor as the receipt No. 10474, Feb. 28, 2017, pursuant to the Suwon District Court Branch Branch of Sung-nam Branch of Sungwon District Court (Seoul District Court), and succeeded to the lessor’s status as to the instant building.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6, Eul evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence No. 1, which is obvious to this court, and the purport of the entire argument of the intervenor's claim as to the purport of the whole argument, the defendant delayed payment of rent for three-thirds of the term of the lease contract of this case, and the plaintiffs, which are previous landlords, refused renewal of the lease contract of this case. The lease contract of this case was
Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant building to the Intervenor who succeeded to the lessor status of the instant building from the Plaintiffs.
Judgment
Article 2(3) of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act, at the issue of the instant case.