건물명도(인도)
1. All appeals filed by the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff and the counterclaim filed in the trial are dismissed.
2. Costs of appeal.
A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.
On October 10, 2015, the Plaintiff: (a) on October 10, 2015, the Defendant, who is the South Eastdong, leased the part of the Defendant’s possession (in the contract, the area is indicated as 38 square meters) with a deposit of KRW 11,50,000; and (b) monthly rent of KRW 130,000 (payment on October 10).
(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). The Defendant did not pay the monthly rent after May 10, 2018, to the Plaintiff for the same year.
7. 30. The Defendant’s termination of the instant lease agreement on the ground that not less than two occasions of delinquency in rent are not less than two.
‘A' sent content-certified mail stating the purpose.
The above mail reached the defendant around that time.
The defendant currently resides in the part of defendant possession.
[Ground of recognition] In light of the facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, 5, and 13, and the facts of the above recognition as to the grounds for the claim of the entire pleadings, the lease contract of this case was lawfully terminated and terminated on or around July 30, 2018 (see Article 640 of the Civil Act). Thus, the defendant is obligated to deliver the part occupied by the defendant to the plaintiff and pay the plaintiff the rent or the rent equivalent to the rent of 130,000 won per month from May 10, 2018 to the completion date of its delivery.
The Defendant asserts that the instant lease agreement is a false declaration of conspiracy, and the Defendant asserts that the instant lease agreement is invalid as a false declaration of conspiracy that was not actually concluded.
In full view of the above facts, Gap evidence Nos. 4 and Eul evidence Nos. 1 and the purport of the entire pleadings, the defendant did not pay the plaintiff monthly rent under the instant lease agreement to the plaintiff in the past. The instant lease agreement entered the part in possession of the defendant as 38 square meters, the area of the part in possession of the defendant is smaller than the actual area, and the defendant was found to have resided in the part in possession of the defendant from October 24, 1984, the previous lease agreement of
However, even according to the Defendant’s assertion, the instant lease agreement is the Defendant.