건물명도
1.The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the principal claim shall be modified as follows:
The Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (Counterclaim).
1. The reasoning for this Court’s explanation concerning this part is as follows: (a) in addition to the fact that the court concludes a lease agreement to use the franchising from the second part of the judgment of the court of first instance to “the lease agreement to use the franchising,” it is identical to the corresponding part of the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance; and (b) thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the
2. Determination on the main claim
A. According to the fact that the lease contract is terminated and the obligation to deliver an object arises, the Defendant did not pay two or more rents, and the instant lease contract was lawfully terminated on May 11, 201, which is the date when the Plaintiff notified the termination of the lease contract. Therefore, the Defendant is obliged to deliver the Plaintiff the instant lease contract to the Plaintiff. As such, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff the repair obligation in the lease relationship, and the lessor’s duty to use and make profits from the leased object and the lessee’s duty to pay the rent is mutually corresponding. However, even if the Defendant refused to pay the rent, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant did not pay the rent in arrears, even if the Plaintiff refused to pay the rent in arrears, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant did not pay the rent in arrears, and thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant lease was terminated on the ground that the Plaintiff violated the obligation to pay the rent in arrears was in breach of the good faith principle.