건물명도(인도)
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.
The purport of the claim and the purport of the appeal.
1. The defendant's appeal citing the judgment of the court of first instance is not significantly different from the argument in the court of first instance, and evidence Nos. 4 through 8 submitted by the court of first instance to the court of first instance (including numbers).
hereinafter the same shall apply) The fact-finding and judgment of the first instance court is justifiable even if each of the entries is added.
Therefore, this court's reasoning is as follows, except where the defendant added the judgment stated in Paragraph 2 below with respect to the argument that is emphasized by this court, and thus, it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (excluding the part concerning the claim for return of unjust enrichment withdrawn by this court). This court's reasoning is as follows.
2. Additional determination
A. After the Defendant’s assertion was concluded, the Plaintiff promised to change the use and repair of the changed portion as the leased object water was changed to the store after the instant change was made at the store before the instant change was made.
In this regard, the plaintiff did not change the purpose of use and perform the duty of repair, and the defendant could not normally use the store after the change of this case.
Accordingly, the Defendant completed cleaning and repair of the store after the modification of the instant case at its own cost, and resumed the business around May 2019, and thereafter paid the Plaintiff a monthly rent.
Therefore, since the defendant did not pay the rent in arrears, the plaintiff cannot terminate the lease contract of this case on the ground that the rent in arrears is overdue.
B. As seen earlier, the fact that the object of lease was modified to the store after the amendment of the instant lease agreement around 2018, among the cases where the instant lease agreement was implicitly renewed.
In addition, in full view of the overall purport of evidence evidence Nos. 6, 7, and 8, the Defendant cooperates with the Plaintiff’s wife around August 2018 to ensure that the change of the location of the lower coper and the road cper, and it does not interfere with the business of the lower coper, table, air conditioner, etc.
When the floor is inside the floor, the table will be replaced with the tables.