건물인도청구의소
1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s main claim is dismissed.
2. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) is KRW 19,170,341, to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).
A principal lawsuit and counterclaim shall also be deemed a principal lawsuit and counterclaim.
1. The facts following the facts do not conflict between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings as stated in Gap evidence 1-1, 2, and 8-2. A
On December 14, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant for the lease of KRW 50,000 for the first floor of the building in Kimpo-si (hereinafter “101”), KRW 2,400,00 for the deposit, KRW 2,400 for the monthly rent, and KRW 2,00 for the lease term from December 16, 2015 to December 15, 2017 for the lease term, KRW 201 for the second floor of the same building (hereinafter “201”) (hereinafter “instant lease contract”) with the same amount as above (hereinafter “instant lease contract”).
B. The Defendant paid to the Plaintiff the total amount of KRW 100,000,000, and used KRW 101 and 201 by delivery from the Plaintiff.
B. On November 21, 2016, the Plaintiff submitted a complaint containing an expression of intent to cancel the instant lease agreement, upon the Defendant’s delinquency of at least three vehicles, and this warden reached the Defendant on December 12, 2016.
C. On December 26, 2016, the Defendant delivered 101 and 102 to the Plaintiff. On January 16, 2017, the Plaintiff returned KRW 25,000,000 out of the deposit to the Defendant.
2. The assertion and judgment
A. 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion of payment of rent, etc. and the Defendant’s assertion on the refund of deposit amount, etc. A) was used as one of the stores following the construction of connecting 101 and 102, which was an independent shop. Since the Defendant succeeded to the lease contract between the former lessee and the Plaintiff, the Defendant’s obligation to remove internal stairs and walls connecting 101 and 201 to the duty to restore as the lessee includes the obligation to restore as the lessee.
However, the defendant delivered 101 and 102 to the plaintiff without such internal construction work, and the plaintiff as of February 2017.