건물명도(인도)
The defendant's appeal against the plaintiff A is dismissed.
In the judgment of the first instance court, the part of the plaintiff B's claim for unjust enrichment.
1. Basic facts
A. On October 28, 1998, Plaintiff A completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the building listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant building”). On December 18, 2012, Plaintiff A completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the share of 27/100 of the said building to Plaintiff B, one’s wife, on December 18, 2012.
B. Around February 1, 1999, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with the Plaintiff to rent at KRW 2,500,000 each of the items on the 1st floor of the instant building (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with the Plaintiff, setting forth the following as to the 49.5375 square meters inboard (a) and the 171.85 square meters in size on the 2nd floor (hereinafter “instant store”) connected each point in sequence with the Plaintiff A, and operated the phrases at the instant store.
On the other hand, the rent under the instant lease agreement was changed to KRW 2,300,000 on March 5, 2013.
C. Around January 10, 2019, the Defendant: (a) set a deposit of KRW 3 million and monthly rent of KRW 800,000 to D with respect to approximately KRW 114.57 square meters among the second floor of the instant building; and (b) did not obtain consent from Plaintiff A, a lessor, regarding the said sub-lease.
By November 5, 2019, the Defendant paid the amount equivalent to the rent under the instant lease agreement to the Plaintiff A.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2-2, Gap evidence 5, Gap evidence 6-1, Gap evidence 8-1, 2, Gap evidence 9, Eul evidence 1, 3 through 6, 10, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. According to the above facts of recognition 1), the Defendant, without the Plaintiff’s consent, can find out the fact that he sub-leaseed approximately 114.57 square meters of the second floor of the instant building to D (the Defendant asserted that he/she obtained consent from the Plaintiff, etc. from March 2013, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it.
The plaintiff A can terminate the lease contract of this case on the ground of the defendant's unauthorized sublease, and the lease contract of this case is terminated on the ground of the defendant's unauthorized sublease.