건물명도
1. The defendant shall deliver to the plaintiff the building indicated in the attached list.
2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.
3...
1. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. On November 3, 2006, the Plaintiff, the owner of the building indicated in the separate sheet, entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant on the six floors among the buildings listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) from November 16, 2006 to December 12, 2006, with the lease term of KRW 30 million, monthly rent of KRW 27 million (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).
Since then, the instant lease agreement was implicitly renewed, and on April 16, 2015, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant that “the instant lease agreement is terminated, and the instant real estate is delivered by October 31, 2015,” and notified the Defendant of the same content on July 21, 2015.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of whole pleadings
B. According to the above facts finding, at least the instant lease agreement was lawfully terminated on November 15, 2015, which was the termination date of the lease agreement at least when the notice of termination was given.
(4) In applying the provisions of Article 10(4) of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act, and Articles 639 and 635 of the Civil Act, it may be deemed that the termination takes effect on October 2015 after six months have passed since the notice of termination was given. Therefore, the Defendant is obliged to deliver the instant real estate to the Plaintiff.
C. The Defendant asserts that the instant lease agreement was renewed on the condition that the monthly rent would be changed, since the Defendant agreed to increase the monthly rent of the instant real estate at KRW 3.7 million after consultation with the Plaintiff after the notice of termination.
Therefore, there is no evidence to prove that there was a mutual agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant to confirm the renewal of the term of the instant lease agreement by modifying the terms of the instant lease agreement.
The defendant's above assertion is without merit.
2. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable.