beta
Text
1. The defendant removes the buildings listed in the separate list Nos. 2 to the plaintiffs, and the land listed in the same list No. 1.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. Of the land listed in the attached list Nos. 2 (hereinafter “instant land”), the Plaintiff A and B completed the registration of ownership transfer on October 31, 2014 with respect to each of the 1/10 shares in the attached list Nos. 3/10, Plaintiff D 2/10, Plaintiff E, and C, respectively.
B. On June 29, 2016, the Plaintiffs entered into a contract with the Defendant to lease the instant land with a deposit of KRW 30 million, KRW 1 million per month, and the period from June 29, 2016 to February 28, 2021 (hereinafter “instant lease contract”).
C. The Defendant, with the consent of the Plaintiffs, newly constructed a building listed in the separate sheet No. 1 on the ground of the instant land (hereinafter “instant building”) and completed registration of initial ownership on June 17, 2016.
From July 15, 2016 to April 18, 2018, the Defendant delayed 11 million won or more of the two or more rents, and the Plaintiffs expressed their intent to terminate the instant lease by delivering a duplicate of the instant complaint to the Defendant.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 and 2 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination on the plaintiffs' claims
A. According to the facts of the judgment on the cause of the claim, the instant lease agreement was duly terminated on March 18, 2019, on which the copy of the instant complaint was served on the Defendant on the ground of the Defendant’s delinquency in rent.
Therefore, the defendant has a duty to remove the building of this case and deliver the land of this case to the plaintiffs unless there are other special circumstances.
B. The Defendant’s assertion 1) The Defendant agreed to deduct the difference in arrears from the deposit. As such, the Plaintiffs asserted to the effect that the instant lease contract cannot be rescinded on the ground of the delinquency in rent. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that there was an agreement as alleged by the Defendant. Therefore, this part of the Defendant’s assertion is without merit. 2) The Defendant’s consent is without merit.