beta
Text
1. Of the first floor of the building listed in paragraph (1) of the attached Table No. 1, the Defendant indicated in the attached Table No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 1.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On June 15, 2016, the Plaintiff concluded a lease contract with the Defendant (hereinafter “the instant lease”) with regard to the building indicated in Paragraph (1) of the Disposition (hereinafter “instant building”) by setting the lease deposit of KRW 13,50,000, monthly rent of KRW 3,450,000, and the lease term of KRW 13,50,000 from July 1, 2016 to June 30, 2017, and delivered the instant building to the Defendant.
B. On May 15, 2017, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a certificate of content indicating the intent to refuse the renewal of the lease of this case, and at that time the said certificate reaches the Defendant.
C. On July 19, 2017, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a certificate of content demanding the delivery of the instant building on the ground of the expiration of the lease term, and the said certificate reaches the Defendant around that time.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1, 3 through 5, purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination:
A. According to the above findings of the determination on the cause of the claim, the lease of this case terminated on June 30, 2017, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the building of this case to the Plaintiff, barring any special circumstance.
B. On the summary of the defendant's defense, the defendant's claim for increase of the deposit for lease against Article 11 of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act is null and void. Accordingly, the plaintiff's claim is without merit, and the plaintiff's claim is not acceptable until the return of the deposit for lease from the plaintiff is returned.
After the closing of the argument in this case, the Defendant asserted the right to purchase the attached things and the right to recover the premium under the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act, but the materials asserted by the Defendant do not appear to be the materials installed for the Defendant’s business to bring objective convenience to the use of the leased objects of this case.