건물명도(인도)
1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff, or Plaintiff for retrial).
1. (1) On May 29, 2015, the Plaintiff leased the instant commercial building to Nonparty C with the lease term up to May 31, 2016, and the Defendant transferred the instant commercial building to Nonparty C from May 30, 2015 to May 25, 2016.
(2) On June 2, 2016, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendant at the court of first instance seeking the delivery of the instant commercial building and return of unjust enrichment from the date of delivery, with the view to the expiration of both the said lease and sub-lease contract, and the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff was a sub-lease without the consent to the conclusion of the said sub-lease contract and obstructed the Defendant’s business. On June 30, 2016, the Plaintiff filed the instant counterclaim seeking damages against the Plaintiff.
(3) On February 16, 2017, the court of first instance rendered a judgment to accept the Plaintiff’s claim on the principal lawsuit and to dismiss the Defendant’s counterclaim claim (hereinafter “the first instance judgment”).
(4) On October 13, 2017, the appellate court (this Court 2017Na58212, 2017Na5829, Counterclaim) issued a judgment dismissing the Defendant’s appeal on the following grounds: (a) the said sub-lease contract was concluded with the Plaintiff’s consent; (b) the Defendant’s argument that the period of sublease should be guaranteed in accordance with the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act; and (c) the lower court rendered a judgment dismissing the Defendant’s appeal (hereinafter “the subject judgment on reexamination”).
(5) The Defendant appealed to Supreme Court Decision 2017Da276402 (principal lawsuit), 2017Da276419 (Counterclaim) and asserted that “The appellate court dismissed the Defendant’s appeal without reasonable grounds, and thus reversed the judgment subject to a retrial.” However, the Supreme Court rendered a ruling dismissing the Defendant’s appeal on April 12, 2018, and thereby became final and conclusive as it is, the judgment of the first instance court and the judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive.
(6) The defendant is a court in respect of the judgment subject to review.