1. The plaintiff, the defendant B delivers the building listed in the attached list, and the defendant F is the building listed in the attached list.

Facts of recognition

On November 2, 2011, the Plaintiff purchased the instant apartment and completed the registration of ownership transfer. On October 20, 2014, through G, ASEAN, the Plaintiff leased the instant apartment to Defendant B by setting the deposit of KRW 10 million, monthly rent of KRW 600,000, and the lease period as October 19, 2016.

Defendant B transferred KRW 10 million to G’s account on October 17, 2014, and continued to pay monthly rent up to July 2018, but did not pay thereafter.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff is seeking the termination of the lease contract on the grounds of overdue rent, etc. through the instant complaint.

Defendant C resided in the apartment of this case under the understanding of Defendant B, and removed the apartment of this case from the time of closing the argument of this case.

[Ground] : The Defendants’ determination as to the main defense of this case by the Defendants (excluding Defendant F) based on the facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 6, Eul 3’s each statement, the purport of the entire pleadings, are merely that the actual owners of the apartment of this case title trust with G, and that the lessor is also G, and therefore, the Plaintiff is not eligible to file the lawsuit of this case.

However, in a performance lawsuit, a person who asserts that he/she is a person holding the standing to sue and has the standing to sue, and the plaintiff and the defendant do not require that he/she is the person holding the standing to sue or the person holding the obligation to perform the contract (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Da14797, Jun. 14, 1994). Thus, in the lawsuit of this case where the plaintiff asserted that he/she is the owner and the lessor and sought termination and delivery of the lease contract against the defendants, the issue of whether the plaintiff is a person holding the standing to perform the obligation to perform the obligation is not a matter that

According to the facts of the determination as to the claim against Defendant B on the merits, the instant complaint containing an expression of intent to terminate the Plaintiff’s lease agreement was delivered to Defendant B on February 8, 2019.