건물명도(인도)
1. The part requesting restoration, among the lawsuits in this case, shall be dismissed.
2. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.
(a) the annexed list;
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On May 23, 2018, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant to lease real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) with a lease deposit of KRW 30 million, monthly rent of KRW 2 million (in addition to value-added tax, payment on the 24th day of each month), and the period from May 24, 2018 to May 23, 2018 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).
B. The Defendant did not pay the rent at all after the conclusion of the instant lease agreement.
[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 5, purport of whole pleadings
2. We examine, ex officio, as to the legitimacy of the part requesting restoration of the lawsuit of this case, whether the part requesting restoration of the original state is lawful.
In civil procedure, the purport of the claim should be specified in detail so that the contents and scope can be clearly identified.
However, in the case of a claim for restoration among the lawsuits in this case, the contents and scope of the claim cannot be deemed clearly specified because the subject, scope, content, method, etc. of restoration are not specified.
Therefore, among the lawsuits of this case, the claim for restoration of the original state is unlawful because the claim is not clearly specified.
3. Determination as to a claim for extradition of real estate, overdue rent, and claim for unjust enrichment equivalent to rent
A. (1) The Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the termination of the instant lease agreement on the grounds of the delinquency in payment of two or more rents via the content-certified mail on March 11, 2019, but asserts to the effect that the said content-certified mail was returned and sent the content-certified mail via mobile phones. However, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, including the statement in the evidence No. 2, is insufficient to acknowledge it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. (2) However, the fact that the Defendant was completely not paying the rent after the conclusion of the instant lease, as seen earlier.