건물명도(인도)
1. The defendant from March 1, 2019 to KRW 16,920,00 from the plaintiff
1. Attached 2.1 of the real estate listed in the list.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. Attached Form
1. On January 3, 2014, the Plaintiff, the owner of the real estate indicated in the list, leased the instant store to the Defendant by setting the lease deposit of KRW 20 million, KRW 1.54 million per month, KRW 1.54 million per month (including value-added tax, and KRW 7,000 per month), the lease term from February 7, 2014 to February 6, 2015 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”), and the Defendant paid the said deposit to the Plaintiff around the date of the said contract.
Since then, the above lease contract has been implicitly renewed, and it has been increased to KRW 1.69 million (including value-added tax) at the time of renewal by February 2016.
B. On September 2018, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a document stating that “The Plaintiff would remove the existing building and build the new building on the instant store site, and thus would no longer renew the instant lease agreement, and thus deliver the instant store to the Defendant by February 6, 2019, the contract term expires, and the document reached the Defendant on September 28, 2018.
C. Nevertheless, after February 7, 2019, the Defendant continued to possess and use the said store while operating the restaurant at the instant store. Since March 2019, the Defendant did not pay rent.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including each branch number, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. According to the above findings of the determination as to the cause of the claim, the lease contract of this case was terminated on February 6, 2019 through the expiration of the period of time from February 6, 2019, and the defendant is obligated to deliver the store of this case to the plaintiff, except in extenuating circumstances.
B. The defendant's argument as to the defendant's assertion 1 argues that since the plaintiff's consent was obtained in running a restaurant at the store of this case and the annexed articles for the convenience of its use were requested for the purchase of the attached articles.
However, evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 of this title.