beta
Text
1. The Defendants jointly deliver to the Plaintiff the real estate listed in the separate sheet.
2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Defendants.
Reasons
1. Assertion and determination
A. In addition to the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 5, on August 19, 2015, the plaintiff leased the building listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as "the instant store") to the defendant A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "Defendant Co., Ltd.") for the lease deposit of KRW 40,00,000, monthly rent of KRW 4,300,000, and three-month special agreement, free use between three months, and the lease period from August 19, 2015 to August 18, 2017 (hereinafter "the instant lease contract"), and delivered the instant store to the plaintiff after the lapse of the free use period. However, the fact that the plaintiff notified the defendant Co., Ltd. of the termination of the instant lease contract on February 15, 2016 on the ground that the Plaintiff was in arrears for more than three months.
According to the above facts, the instant lease agreement was lawfully terminated by the Plaintiff’s termination on February 15, 2016. Thus, the Defendants are jointly obligated to deliver the instant store to the Plaintiff, barring any special circumstance.
B. As to this, the Defendants asserted that: (a) if the Plaintiff did not cooperate in the change of entrance, and only 90,000 p.m. o., the management office did not properly operate the instant store by correcting the entrance side of the entrance door of the instant store; (b) the Plaintiff leased the section for common use of the commercial building to which the instant store belongs, and (c) the Plaintiff Company did not have a duty to deliver the instant store because the Plaintiff Company’s employees did not pay for the player management expenses and management expenses, while using the other stores of the said commercial building as the sales office.
However, solely on the above circumstances asserted by the Defendants, it is difficult to view that the Defendant Company had justifiable grounds for refusing to pay rent under the instant lease agreement.