1. The defendant marks 1, 2, 1, 3, 1, 1, 1, 3, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1

1. Basic facts

가. 피고는 2014. 4. 8. 원고로부터 무허가건물인 창원시 마산회원구 C 지상 건물(이하 ‘이 사건 건물’이라 한다) 중 별지 도면 표시 ⑴, ⑵, ⑶, ⑷, ⑴의 각 점을 차례로 연결한 선내 ㈎ 부분 53.94㎡(이하 ‘이 사건 점포’라 한다)를 보증금 250만 원, 차임 월 60만 원, 기간 24개월로 정하여 임차(이하 ‘이 사건 임대차계약’이라 한다)한 후 그곳에서 ‘D’라는 상호로 영업을 하여 오고 있다.

B. On October 8, 2014, the head of Mapo-si imposed a non-performance penalty of KRW 4,80,000 on the Plaintiff on January 14, 2015, which issued a corrective order to voluntarily remove the instant building, but was not corrected. The Plaintiff paid KRW 4,80,000 for the non-performance penalty on June 26, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1, 2, 3, and 15 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. As to the determination on this safety defense, the Plaintiff sought the delivery of the instant store on the ground of the termination of the instant lease agreement, and damages equivalent to the enforcement fine on the ground of the nonperformance of obligations under the instant lease agreement, the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff is not the owner of the instant store, and that there is no standing to sue. However, in a lawsuit for performance, the Plaintiff’s assertion that he/she is qualified to sue and the person asserted as the performance obligor by himself/herself, has standing to sue, and thus, the existence of standing to sue is fair based on the Plaintiff’s assertion, and the original Defendant does not need to be a person who is actually or is the performance obligor (see Supreme Court Decision 94Da14797, Jun. 14, 194).

Meanwhile, the defendant's assertion is that the plaintiff is not the owner of the store of this case, and the plaintiff is not the right holder of the claim for extradition and the claim for damages.