1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

The defendant shall receive KRW 3,907,190 from the plaintiff at the same time.

Basic Facts

On June 30, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant on the condition that the 36.1 square meters (hereinafter “instant store”) of the 1st floor among the buildings listed in the separate sheet, a commercial building, is KRW 5 million, monthly rent of KRW 500,000 (payment on January 30), and until redevelopment of the term of lease (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). Accordingly, the Defendant occupied and used the instant store until August 28, 2019 (the provisional execution date based on the judgment of the first instance court) upon delivery of the instant store.

On March 12, 2018, when the management and disposal plan was approved in accordance with the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Dwelling Conditions, the Plaintiff made a verbal request to the Defendant for “a request to deliver and deliver the instant store until November 30, 2018,” and notified the Defendant on January 2, 2019 that “a request to deliver and deliver the instant store” was approved. On March 12, 2019, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on March 18, 2019, and served the Defendant with a copy of the instant complaint stating the Defendant’s declaration of intent to terminate the instant lease on the grounds of the arrears of rent.

[Grounds for recognition] The Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff, who is not an external owner, is not eligible for the registration of transfer of ownership caused by the trust regarding the instant store on December 28, 2018, on the ground that the Plaintiff completed the registration of transfer of ownership with respect to the instant store on December 28, 2018.

On the other hand, in a lawsuit for performance, the standing to be a party lies in a person who asserts that he/she has the right to demand performance, which is a subject matter of lawsuit, and whether the right to demand performance exists is to be proved through the deliberation of the merits (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Da44387, 44394, Oct. 7, 2005). The plaintiff raises objection against the defendant.