건물인도 등
1. The plaintiff's primary claim against the defendants is dismissed.
2. Defendant C’s KRW 216,700,000 and this shall apply to the Plaintiff.
1. Facts which have no dispute over the basic facts [based for recognition], Gap evidence 5, 12 (including provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings;
A. Defendant B is a child of E who had a de facto marital spouse with the Plaintiff until 2011, and Defendant C is the spouse of Defendant B.
B. Defendant D is the owner and lessor of the real estate listed in the attached list (hereinafter “instant apartment”).
C. As of the date of the closing of argument in the instant apartment, Defendant B, C and their children, F, G and E reside in the instant apartment.
2. As to the main claim
A. A. Around January 20, 2009, the purport of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Plaintiff leased the instant apartment from Defendant D with a deposit of KRW 300,000,000, and the lease period of KRW 2 years. Around that time, the Plaintiff was the Plaintiff. Around that time, the Plaintiff was allowing Defendant B and C to gratuitously reside in the instant apartment.
Since the Plaintiff notified Defendant D of the refusal to renew the above lease agreement on November 18, 2014, the lease agreement on the apartment of this case between the Plaintiff and Defendant D, which had been implicitly renewed, was terminated as February 23, 2015, and around November 19, 2014, Defendant B and C notified Defendant B and C of the termination of the said lease agreement as of February 22, 2015, Defendant B and C are obligated to deliver the apartment of this case to the Plaintiff, and Defendant D, at the same time, is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 300,000,000 as the said lease deposit to the Plaintiff.
B. On January 20, 2009, it is difficult to believe that the Plaintiff leased the instant apartment from Defendant D with KRW 300,000,000,00, in light of the following: (a) evidence Nos. 1 appears to be consistent with the facts that the Plaintiff leased the instant apartment from Defendant D with KRW 300,000,00; and (b) evidence Nos. 1 appears to be inconsistent with the above facts; and (c) Defendant D stated the parties who entered into a lease agreement with Defendant C as Defendant C; and (d) rather, the purport of the entire pleadings is comprehensively taken