건물명도 등
1. In accordance with Paragraph 2, the judgment of the first instance is modified by the expansion of the purport of the claim in the trial.
2. The defendant is a stock company.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On May 26, 2009, the Plaintiff completed the registration of transfer of ownership based on a trust agreement between NonELC Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “NonELC”) and NonELC on May 22, 2009.
B. Since the Defendant entered into a contract on the lease of all the 1 and 2 stories (hereinafter “instant real estate”) among the real estate listed in the separate sheet for one year from October 1, 2010 to NonELC on September 6, 2010, the lease contract with NonELC was renewed twice. The lease contract with NonELC was renewed twice, and the lease contract with the second renewed on September 14, 2012 (hereinafter “instant lease contract”) was expired on March 31, 2013, the Defendant continued to occupy the instant real estate until the date of closing the argument in the trial.
[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1-1 to 3, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the above findings of the determination as to the cause of the claim, the defendant's calculation of the amount claimed by the plaintiff in the amount of KRW 37,533,449 from the non-ELC as requested by the plaintiff is as follows.
The defendant shall pay the rent from October 2013 to February 2014 as the rent, January 28, 2014, and the same year.
2. Each of the 28. 4,100,100 won (monthly rent) was paid only, and the sum of the rent and the late payment charge (the lease agreement of this case providing for the addition of the late payment charge of 5% per annum) during the above period remains 12,466,51 won as of February 28, 2014, and this amount remains after deducting the aforementioned money from the deposit for lease deposit amount of 50 million won.
At the same time, the Plaintiff, the owner of the instant real estate, is obligated to deliver the instant real estate to the Plaintiff.
3. Judgment on the defense
A. The grounds for the court’s explanation on this part of the non-performance of the condition and the violation of the principle of good faith are as follows: the ground for the first instance judgment, except that the non-performance of the condition and the violation of the principle of good faith set forth in the No. 3-3 of the No. 4 as “No. 1-3”,