건물명도
1. The defendant shall receive KRW 200 million from the plaintiff, and at the same time, shall be the real estate stated in the attached Table to the plaintiff.
1. The purport of the parties’ assertion is that the Plaintiff seeks to deliver the instant apartment at the same time with the payment of the deposit KRW 210 million, alleging that the lease agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the instant apartment was terminated due to the expiration of the period of lease on the attached list (hereinafter referred to as “the instant apartment”) before March 8, 2014, and that the lease agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant was renewed on January 4, 2014, prior to the expiration of one month prior to the expiration of the period of lease on the attached list (hereinafter referred to as “the instant apartment”). As the Defendant was notified of the rejection of renewal on February 20, 2014, the Plaintiff asserted that the lease agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the instant apartment was renewed on the same condition as the previous apartment under Article 6 of the Housing Lease Protection Act.
2. The key issue of this case is whether or not the plaintiff notified of the rejection of renewal one month prior to the expiration of the lease term, and it is reasonable to view that there was a notification of the rejection of renewal as a down payment prior to that time, on January 4, 2014, the plaintiff, a lessor, requested the defendant, who is the lessee, to change the previous contract term (the deposit KRW 210 million), into partial monthly income, at least the whole purport of the statements and arguments in subparagraphs 2, 3, and 1-1, 2, and 3, and at least around January 4, 2014, the plaintiff, as the lessee, expressed his/her intention not to renew the contract, and that the defendant requested the plaintiff to return part of the deposit for lease as the down payment without consent to the above plaintiff's request. Thus, it is reasonable to view that there was a notification of rejection of renewal at that time.
3. The conclusion is that the lease contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant regarding the instant apartment has expired on March 8, 2014. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant apartment, which is the leased object, to the Plaintiff at the same time receiving the deposit amounting to KRW 210 million from the Plaintiff.