beta
Text
1. The defendant shall indicate the attached drawings among the buildings listed in the attached list to the plaintiff (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (7), (9), and (9).
Reasons
1. 기초사실 원고는 2008. 4. 25. 피고에게 별지 목록 기재 건물 중 별지 도면 표시 ①, ②, ③, ④, ⑤, ⑥, ⑦, ⑧, ⑨, ①의 각 점을 차례로 연결한 선내 ㈎ 부분 148.76㎡(이하 ‘이 사건 임대차목적물’)를 임대차보증금 6억 원, 차임 월 4,365만 원, 임대차기간 2008. 5. 20.부터 2011. 5. 31.까지로 정하여 임대하였다가, 2011. 5.경 다시 차임 월 4,865만 원(2011. 6. 1.부터 2013. 1. 31.까지) 또는 월 5,365만 원(2013. 2. 1.부터 2016. 1. 31.까지), 임대차기간 2011. 6. 1.부터 2016. 1. 31.까지로 정하여 임대차계약을 갱신하였다
(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). On August 12, 2015, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a written notice to the effect that the instant lease agreement terminated on January 31, 2016 is either extended or the Plaintiff did not intend to renew the contract, and the said written notice reached the Defendant on August 13, 2015.
【Ground for recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap's 1 through 5, the purport of whole pleadings
2. According to the above findings of determination as to the cause of the claim, the instant lease agreement is 2016
1. Since the expiration of the period on 31. 31., the defendant is obligated to deliver the object of the lease of this case to the plaintiff, barring special circumstances.
3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion
A. The defendant asserts that he cannot comply with the plaintiff's request for extradition until he receives the lease deposit under the lease contract of this case.
According to the statement in Gap evidence No. 3, the plaintiff and the defendant can recognize the fact that "the defendant delivered the leased object to the plaintiff and then returned the lease deposit to the defendant" at the time of the lease contract (Article 4 (3) of the lease contract of this case). Accordingly, it is reasonable to view that the defendant's obligation to deliver the leased object of this case is the obligation to be fulfilled first than the plaintiff's obligation to return the lease deposit. Therefore, the above argument by the