beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff:
A. Defendant B indicated in the attached sheet No. 17 through 19, 3, 20 through 22, 5, 23.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff is the owner of 112 square meters in Seosan-si (hereinafter “instant land”), and the Defendants are the husband and wife.
B. Defendant B: (a) attached Table 17 through 19, 3, 20 through 22, 5, 23 through 26, 8, and 17, among the land in the instant case, connected each point of 57.1 square meter above the part inside the ship connected each point of 9, 27, 20, 21, 28, 11, 12, and 9; (b) connected each point of 18.8 square meter above the inside ship; (c) connected each point of 13, 29, 34, and 13; (d) connected each point of 32.1 square meter above the land in the instant case to 32.1 square meter above the land in the instant case; and (e) determined the land from the owner of the land in the instant case to 10.25,201, the land in each of the instant case to 10.25,2014.
The defendants have sold in each of the above buildings the non-payment and clothing, etc.
C. Although Defendant B paid the rent by April 21, 2016, Defendant B did not pay the rent thereafter.
On September 23, 2016, the Plaintiff expressed to the Defendants the intent to terminate the lease agreement.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap 1 through 10 evidence, appraiser E’s appraisal result, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the lease contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the instant land is deemed to have been lawfully terminated.
Therefore, the Plaintiff, the owner of the instant land, and Defendant B, the owner of the instant building, removed each of the instant building, delivered the instant part of the land, and Defendant C, the owner of the instant building, has the duty to leave the building
(3) The Defendants owned not only each of the instant buildings but also the instant land, which is the site thereof until October 2013. However, the Defendants’ determination as to the Defendants’ assertion was based on auction.