건물명도(인도)
1. The judgment of the first instance, including the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff)’s counterclaim extended by this court, is as follows.
1. Basic facts
A. On November 26, 2008, the Plaintiff leased the instant store to the Defendant with a deposit of KRW 20 million, KRW 1350,000 per month, KRW 1350,000 per month, the lease term from December 13, 2008 to December 12, 2009.
(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). Since then, the said lease agreement was renewed as follows, and the lease agreement was renewed until December 14, 2015, KRW 30,000, KRW 1,900,000, KRW 1,900,000, and the lease term was renewed until December 12, 2016, and thereafter until December 2017.
In order to increase 1.3 million won as security deposit (including value added tax) in 1.3 million won in 209, 1.3 million won in 2009, 1.3 million won in 2010, " 1.3.5 million won in 2010 won in 2013 " " 1.550,000 won in 1.5555 million won in 42012 " 1.5550,013 in 1.755 million won in 1.755 million won in 2014 " 1.55 million won in 1.95 million won in 1.5 million won in 2015.
B. On October 13, 2017, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the refusal to renew the lease agreement and restoration of the facility to its original state.
C. The Defendant operated a laundry in the instant store with the trade name C, and currently occupies the instant store.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 16 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination on the main claim
A. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the instant lease contract was terminated on December 12, 2017, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant store to the Plaintiff.
B. The gist of the Defendant’s argument 1) is that the Defendant’s duty to deliver the instant store and the Plaintiff’s duty to return the lease deposit are in simultaneous performance relationship. Thus, the Defendant asserts that the Defendant cannot comply with the Plaintiff’s claim before receiving the deposit from the Plaintiff. 2) The Defendant paid KRW 30 million to the Plaintiff as the deposit for lease, and the instant case.