beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff is among the 1st floor of the ground-based building indicated in the annexed drawing among the 5,628 square meters of land for a factory in Seocheon-si, Seocheon-si.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On October 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a lease contract (hereinafter “first lease”) with Defendant B and Order 1 (hereinafter “First Building”) with the term from October 1, 2015 to September 30, 2016, setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 12,00,000, monthly rent of KRW 1,200,000, and the term of lease from October 1, 2015 to September 30, 2016, and leased the first building to Defendant B.
B. On May 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a lease contract with Defendant C by setting the lease deposit of KRW 15,00,000, monthly rent of KRW 1,500,000, and the lease term of KRW 1,500,000 from June 1, 2016 to May 31, 2017 (hereinafter “instant lease contract”) and leased the instant building to Defendant C, including the lease of KRW 2.
C. On August 30, 2016, the Plaintiff notified Defendant B that it would not renew the first lease, and notified Defendant C that it would not renew the second lease on April 5, 2017.
[Grounds for Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 5 and 6 (including each number), the result of the survey and appraisal conducted by appraiser E, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination:
A. According to the above findings of the determination as to the cause of the claim, since the lease of this case terminated upon the expiration of each period, Defendant B is obligated to deliver the building No. 1 and Defendant C to each Plaintiff, unless there are special circumstances.
B. On the summary of the defendants' defense, the defendants' defenses 1) were proved to the purport that the plaintiff's claim is groundless, since the plaintiff did not fulfill his duty of explanation as to the special terms and conditions that "it can be terminated at any time due to redevelopment or sale," which are important contents of the lease contract of this case, as the plaintiff did not fulfill his duty of explanation. Thus, the plaintiff's claim is without merit.