beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. On July 25, 2014, the facts C, which is the premise of the dispute, concluded a lease agreement with the Defendant on the deposit money of KRW 30,00,000, monthly rent of KRW 200,000, monthly rent of KRW 200,00 from August 1, 2014 to August 1, 2017 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). According to the said lease agreement, the lessee may not change the purpose, structure, etc. of the said real estate without the consent of the lessor (Article 3), and if the lessor violates this, the lessor may terminate the lease agreement immediately.
(Article 4) The high agreement was made.
(hereinafter referred to as the “instant termination agreement.” After entering into the instant lease agreement, the Defendant extended the number of 83 square meters in the ship (B) section of the instant building, which connects each point of 1,2,3,9,9,10, and 37 square meters in order to each point of 4,5,6,6,7,8, and 4 of the same drawings on the (A) section of the steel structure panel and roof warehouse of the instant building, each point of 4,5,6,7,8, and 83 square meters in sequence.
(hereinafter) On May 27, 2015, the Plaintiff purchased the instant land and the instant building from C, and completed the registration of ownership transfer under the Daegu District Court’s registration No. 160812, July 8, 2015, and succeeded to the lessor’s status of the instant lease agreement.
The North-gu Office of the Daegu Metropolitan City confirmed the extension of this case as an unauthorized building and issued a corrective order.
[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence 1-2, Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence 3-1 and 2, Gap evidence 5 and 7, appraiser D's appraisal result, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The parties' assertion
A. The plaintiff's assertion that the extension portion of this case was expanded and reconstructed without the consent of the lessor without permission. Thus, the plaintiff is a lessor who succeeded to the lease contract of this case and served a duplicate of the complaint of this case.