건물명도
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
1. The defendant's grounds for appeal citing the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the argument of the court of first instance, and each evidence submitted by the court of first instance is acknowledged as legitimate even if each evidence submitted to the court of first instance was presented to this court.
Therefore, the reasoning for the court’s explanation on the instant case is as follows, except for the Defendant’s assertion emphasized or added by this court, and thus, it is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance. Therefore, it is acceptable to accept it as it is in accordance with the main sentence
2. The addition;
A. The defendant asserts that since the plaintiff acquired the obligation to return the deposit for the deposit for the deposit for the lease to the defendant Eul, the defendant's duty to restore the deposit for the lease to the defendant and the plaintiff's obligation to return the deposit for the lease for the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease
B. The defendant asserts to the effect that the plaintiff succeeded to the obligation to return the lease deposit under Article 3 (2) of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act, but the plaintiff does not constitute the person who succeeded to the right to acquire or lease each of the above real estate from E. Therefore, the defendant's assertion premised on this is without merit.
C. The defendant, a creditor of E, asserts that he may refuse the plaintiff's request for the above extradition until he receives the lease deposit of KRW 40 million from the plaintiff on behalf of the plaintiff, but the above obligation cannot be recognized as having been performed, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that E is insolvent. Thus, the defendant's above assertion based on this premise is without merit.
The defendant is obligated to pay 6 million won (=30 million won x 1/5) to the defendant's section for exclusive use.