beta
Text
1. The defendant is the second floor parking lot of reinforced concrete C's sloping roof, and the first floor of general restaurants, at Seopopopo City, to the plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On June 16, 201, 201, D entered into a lease agreement with the Plaintiff and the order building (hereinafter “instant building”) under the name of the Plaintiff, E, etc., stating that the lease deposit shall be KRW 20,000,000, annual rent shall be KRW 12,000,000, and the lease term shall be from July 1, 201 to June 30, 201 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). From around that time, D entered into a general restaurant with the trade name “F” (hereinafter “instant restaurant”).
B. On June 10, 2014, D renewed the above lease agreement with the Plaintiff on condition that he/she will rent KRW 15,00,000 for annual rent, and from July 1, 2014 to June 30, 2015, D transferred the right to lease the instant building to the Defendant, who is the husband of G, who had worked as an employee of the instant restaurant. On July 10, 2014, the Defendant: (a) concluded a lease agreement with the Plaintiff to lease the instant building from July 10, 2014 to June 30, 2016 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”); and (b) concluded a lease agreement with the Plaintiff and the instant building from the time of delivery to the time of its operation.
[Judgment of the court below] The ground for recognition is without merit, Gap evidence 2-1 and 2-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the second lease contract of this case was terminated on June 30, 2016, and thus, the defendant is obligated to deliver the building of this case to the plaintiff, barring special circumstances.
3. The defendant's argument regarding the defendant's assertion is asserted that since the defendant's second lease contract of this case was renewed by one renewal request against the plaintiff on March 29, 2016 in accordance with Article 10 of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act, it cannot comply with the plaintiff's claim of this case, but the lessee under Article 10 of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act.