beta
Text
1. The defendant against the plaintiffs
A. Of the buildings indicated in the attached list, it is about 243.96 square meters of one story and 247.5 square meters of two floors.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Defendant leased a deposit of KRW 100 million, KRW 6 million monthly rent, and KRW 6 million from September 16, 2010 to September 15, 2013 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) among the real estate listed in the separate sheet, the ownership of the instant bank, from Saturdays-2 Mutual Savings Bank (hereinafter “instant bank”).
B. On September 16, 2010, the instant bank filed for registration of the establishment of chonsegwon (hereinafter “right to lease on a deposit basis”) with the person having chonsegwon as the Defendant (hereinafter “right to lease on a deposit basis”) under Article 47681 of the Busan District Court’s Busan District Court’s receipt of the registry office of Busan District Court, from September 16, 2010 to September 15, 2013, in order to secure the obligation to return the said deposit.
C. The Plaintiffs purchased the instant building through the public sale procedure and completed the registration of ownership transfer on July 23, 2013 by each of the Plaintiffs 1/3 shares.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1, 2, and 3 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the facts of the judgment on the cause of the claim, the instant lease agreement and the instant lease on a deposit basis were terminated on September 15, 2013, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant building to the Plaintiffs and to implement the procedure for registration cancellation of the registration of the establishment of the instant lease on a deposit basis, barring any special circumstance.
3. The defendant's assertion is asserted that the defendant agreed to renew the lease contract of this case with the bank of this case upon the expiration of the contract period. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge such agreement, and even if there was such agreement, there is no ground to view that the defendant can oppose the plaintiffs.
In addition, according to Article 2 (3) of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act (amended by Act No. 12042, Aug. 13, 2013), the defendant also has the lessee's right to lease exceeding the amount of security deposit as prescribed by the Presidential Decree.