beta
Text
1. For the plaintiffs:
A. Defendant C religious organization D shall receive KRW 100,000,000 from the Plaintiffs.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On September 7, 2009, the Defendant C religious organization Diplomatic Association (hereinafter “D”) entered into a lease agreement with F and G to September 30, 201 on the part (A) of the instant real estate connected in sequence 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 1 of the attached drawings among the instant real estate, with each point of which is KRW 100 million, monthly rent of KRW 100,000,000,000 from September 30, 2009 to September 30, 201. After that, on September 30, 201, the Defendant Diplomatic Association concluded a lease agreement between F and G, the wife of the instant real estate, and H and 100,000,000 won, monthly rent of KRW 1,100,000,000,000,000 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).
B. The Plaintiffs, on June 2, 2015, succeeded to the status of the lessor of the instant lease agreement, as the owners who acquired 1/2 shares of the I land and its ground buildings (hereinafter “instant real estate”).
C. On June 8, 2015 and July 15, 2015, the Plaintiffs notified Defendant Diplomatic Association of the intention to terminate the instant lease agreement as of August 31, 2015 through the content verification. On August 31, 2015, the Plaintiffs requested the delivery of the instant leased object on the ground that the lease term expires.
The Plaintiffs filed a provisional injunction against the possession transfer of the leased object of this case against Defendant D Diplomatic Association on October 7, 2015, and received a decision on the provisional injunction against the possession transfer of the leased object from the Seoul Northern District Court (2015Kadan22339) on October 7, 2015, and applied for compulsory execution on October 14, 2015 with title. However, it was impossible to execute the instant lease object on the ground that the possessor of the leased object of this case was Defendant C Religious Association E-I (hereinafter “EI”).
Accordingly, the Plaintiffs again filed against Defendant E-I, applying for provisional disposition prohibiting the transfer of possession of the leased object of this case, from the above court on October 29, 2015.