beta
(영문) 대구지방법원 2017.09.29 2017가단105361

건물명도(인도)

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On May 31, 2013, the Defendant concluded a lease agreement with C as to subparagraph 103 of the instant building, which was the owner of the building listed in the attached Table 1 list (hereinafter “instant building”), and concluded a lease agreement again on May 31, 2013, with the period from June 1, 2013 to May 31, 2015.

B. Thereafter, on March 15, 2016, C sent to the Defendant a proof of the content of the refusal to renew the said lease agreement and of demanding the implementation of an explanation.

C. The Plaintiff purchased the instant building from C and completed the registration of ownership transfer on May 31, 2016.

On June 22, 2016, the Plaintiff and the Defendant drafted a lease deposit amounting to approximately KRW 27.51 square meters for the portion (A) part on the ship (hereinafter “instant store”) connected with each of the points in the attached drawing Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 1,000 square meters in sequence among the instant building (hereinafter “instant store”) among the instant building, each of which is stipulated as the lease deposit amounting to KRW 2,7.51 square meters in monthly rent, and KRW 1,00,000 in monthly rent, each of which is stipulated under a special agreement, and “temporary contract (a six months prior to the maintenance of the apartment house), the term of lease may be changed according to the site conditions, and the lease is confirmed to be succeeded to the deposit due to the change of the owner’s ownership” (hereinafter “instant contract”).

E. After that, the defendant has operated D at the store of this case.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. 1) The former owner of the instant building sent to the Defendant a proof of the content that C, who was the former owner of the instant building, demanded the Defendant to either notify of the refusal of the lease agreement renewal and to implement the order under subparagraph 103. 2) The Plaintiff purchased the instant building from C, which demanded the Defendant to remodel the instant building and to surrender the said subparagraph 103 to the Defendant. The Defendant demanded that the necessary period of time be changed.