beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.08.09 2015가단170881

건물명도

Text

1.(a)

Defendant I: (a) the real estate listed in Section 1 of the Schedule of Real Estate listed in Annex A to the Plaintiff;

B. The defendant corporation.

Reasons

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. (1) The Plaintiffs are sectional owners who own individually the stores of NO stores in Gwanak-gu in Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant commercial buildings”) as shown in attached Form 3. The Defendants are sub-lessees who leased the said stores from the Plaintiffs.

O Co., Ltd. is a company specializing in the shopping mall operation that plans and operates most sales facilities in the commercial building of this case as shopping mall by leasing them from the majority of sectional owners of sales facilities including the plaintiffs, and pays monthly rent to sectional owners such as the plaintiff.

(2) On August 2006, the Plaintiffs concluded a lease agreement with the O Co., Ltd. on each sectional ownership store and renewed the lease agreement every two years thereafter.

On August 31, 2012, the Plaintiffs notified O of the termination of the lease agreement and the request for the delivery of a store between June and January, 2012, which is the expiration date of the renewed lease agreement.

However, Co., Ltd. did not deliver each shop of the commercial building of this case owned by the plaintiffs, and some of the plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against O for the name of the store against the corporation corporation, and won the case after the expiration of the lease contract.

(3) The Plaintiffs demanded that the Plaintiff deliver each of the divided stores owned by the Plaintiffs, Co., Ltd. and the Defendants, but do not allow the delivery of two years after the lapse of two years.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 12 (including each number), the purport of whole pleadings

B. According to the above facts, the lease contract for each sectionally owned store concluded between the plaintiffs and PO was terminated as of August 31, 2012, and the Defendants, the former lessee, also have divided ownership due to the expiration of the lease contract.