beta
Text
1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.
2. The defendant shall deliver to the plaintiff each real estate listed in the separate sheet.
3...
Reasons
1. On August 11, 2014, the Plaintiff: (a) leased each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”) to the Defendant as the lease term of KRW 50 million from August 11, 2014 to August 10, 2016; and (b) the fact that each of the instant real estate was delivered to the Defendant by setting the lease term of KRW 2 million from August 11, 2014 to August 10, 2016; (c) the fact that the Defendant delivered each of the instant real estate does not conflict between the parties; or (d) the fact that the real estate was delivered
Therefore, according to the above facts of recognition, the above lease contract was terminated upon the expiration of the period on August 10, 2016. Thus, the defendant is obligated to deliver each of the real estate of this case, except in extenuating circumstances.
As to this, the defendant asserts that the lease contract has been renewed first, the tenant of the commercial building is not refused without justifiable grounds if the tenant requests the renewal of the contract between six months and one month prior to the expiration of the lease term (Article 10 of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act). However, there is no evidence to deem that the defendant requested the renewal of the contract between six months and one month prior to the expiration of the lease term (the defendant asserted the renewal of the lease contract until October 27, 2016). The above argument by the defendant is without merit.
Next, in the event that the Plaintiff sells each of the instant real estate to another person and the other person wishes to terminate the said lease agreement, the Plaintiff agreed to pay KRW 50 million to the Defendant as facility cost, which is for the activation of the commercial buildings located in each of the instant real estate. In the event that the commercial building was activated by the Defendant’s efforts, the Plaintiff did not sell each of the instant real estate by having the Defendant sublease it to a third party for the purpose of evading payment of KRW 50 million agreed upon. As such, the sale of each of the instant real estate was substantially done, and thus, the Plaintiff is paid KRW 50 million.