건물명도
1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the defendant;
purport, purport, ..
1. The following facts, which became final and conclusive in the judgment subject to review, are apparent in records or significant to this court:
On January 20, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for delivery of the instant building and return of overdue rent or unjust enrichment (hereinafter “instant lawsuit”) on the ground of the termination of the lease agreement between the Defendant, Seoul Northern District Court 2016Da3499, and the said court rendered a judgment of the first instance court that accepted the Plaintiff’s claim on August 10, 2016.
B. On April 12, 2017, the Defendant appealed as Seoul Northern District Court 2016Na5700, which was dissatisfied with the judgment of the first instance, and the appellate court rendered a judgment subject to a retrial that dismissed the Defendant’s appeal.
C. On April 17, 2017, the Defendant served an authentic copy of the judgment subject to a retrial and appealed with the Supreme Court Decision 2017Da16907 Decided April 17, 201, but, on June 29, 2017, the Defendant was sentenced to the dismissal of the judgment subject to a retrial, and the authentic copy of the judgment was served on the Defendant on June 30, 2017.
2. Whether the litigation for retrial of this case is legitimate
A. While the Plaintiff, a lessor of the gist of the Defendant’s assertion, refused to file an application for the Defendant’s business registration by taking advantage of the loan agreement and the loan certificate, the Plaintiff was aware of the fact that the Plaintiff snick the smell of the instant building, which is the leased object, by operating the purification tank’s circulation device in an abnormal manner, caused the Plaintiff to find out the instant building on the ground of the Defendant’s non-payment of rent (the partial arrears of September 2015).
Furthermore, upon filing the instant lawsuit on January 20, 2016, the Plaintiff submitted only “the second content certification sent to the Defendant on December 3, 2015,” while concealing the fact that “the first content certification indicating the intent to unilaterally terminate the lease contract under the circumstance of delinquency in rent 1, 2015” was presented as evidence.
The court of the first instance and the appellate court shall provide evidence, such as the letter of charter contract, loan certificate, and document, submitted by the plaintiff's side as above.