건물명도(인도)
1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)
A. Of the buildings listed in the attached list, part 47.27 square meters shall be 47.27 square meters.
1. Basic facts
A. On April 3, 2014, the Defendant entered into a contract with C and D to lease the 15 million won deposit, monthly rent of KRW 80,000 (excluding value-added tax), and the period from April 30, 2014 to April 29, 2015, on the attached list (hereinafter “instant building”).
(hereinafter “Lease”). Since the Defendant received the delivery of the first floor of the instant building, the Defendant operates a coffee shop on the first floor of the instant building until now.
B. The instant lease agreement was renewed every year after the expiration of the foregoing period, and the rent was increased from April 30, 2015 to KRW 990,000 per month (including value-added tax).
C. On the other hand, the Plaintiff purchased the instant building from the foregoing C and D on June 14, 2017, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on September 14, 2017, and succeeded to the lessor’s status under the instant lease agreement.
However, the Plaintiff planned to remove the instant building and build a new building, and around March 20, 2019, expressed the Defendant’s intent to refuse to renew the instant lease agreement.
[Evidence] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1-1, 2-3, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination on the main claim
A. According to the facts of the Defendant’s extradition duty 1), the lease of this case was renewed on April 30, 2018 and terminated on April 29, 2019 by the Plaintiff, who was the lessor, before April 29, 2019, declared his/her intention of refusal of renewal. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the Plaintiff the first floor of the instant building, which is the leased object, to the Plaintiff. 2) As to this, the Defendant shall not deliver the first floor of the instant building to the Plaintiff until the Plaintiff was refunded the deposit. However, according to the evidence evidence No. 11, the Plaintiff’s defense of simultaneous performance shall not be delivered until the Plaintiff was returned the deposit.