beta
Text
1. Defendant A, B, D, E, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, M, N, P, Q, Q, M, U, W, W, I I, and Arax Hail P, X.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On May 6, 2008, the Plaintiff and Nonparty Co., Ltd. entered into a lease agreement between the Plaintiff and Nonparty Co., Ltd., the title of the party (the title of the party was the title of the party, but the title of the party was changed to the title of the company, on June 9, 2008, the title of the title of the title of the company, and the title of the title of the title was changed to the title of the title of the company; hereinafter “the title of the title of the party”). On May 6, 2008, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement between the title of the title of the company (the title of the title of the party) and Nonparty Co., Ltd., Ltd. (the title of the title of the party) on May 6, 2008, the title of the title of the title was 1,158.7 square meters, and the title of the connecting title
(1) The term of the contract from May 6, 2008 to August 3, 2013 is set at five years and 90 days (five years from May 6, 2008 to August 3, 2013) (five years from August 4, 2008 to August 3, 2013), the term of the lease deposit of KRW 351,00,000,000, and the term of the contract from May 6, 2008 to August 3, 2013 (hereinafter “instant lease contract”). The lease contract is set at KRW 39,00,000,00 for each type of business (hereinafter “instant lease contract”).
(2) On November 16, 2009, the Plaintiff changed the contract area to 354,966,030 won, and the contract area to 2,183.8 square meters (the increase to 1,181 square meters in the area of the commercial building on the ground of this case) and the rent to 39,440,670 won per month.
B. A sub-lease 1) After the conclusion of the instant lease contract, some of the stores among the instant commercial buildings sub-leases to Defendant A and other third parties. 2) Of the instant commercial buildings, some of the sub-lessees of the instant commercial buildings were sub-leases.
C. On October 21, 2010, the Plaintiff terminated the instant lease agreement, as the Plaintiff did not delay that the upper half of the lower half of the period was more than three months.
The Plaintiff’s demand for delivery of the instant commercial building and the process of the relevant lawsuit are among the Defendants in order to preserve the right to recover due to the termination of the lease agreement on January 7, 201 and February 24, 2011.