beta
Text
The defendant shall deliver to the plaintiff the real estate listed in the attached list. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.
subsection 1.
Reasons
1. According to the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 as to the cause of the claim, the defendant leased from the plaintiff on April 1, 2018 the monthly rent of KRW 100,000 and the lease period from April 1, 2018 to March 31, 2020, respectively (hereinafter "the lease of this case"). The plaintiff expressed the defendant's intention to refuse to renew the lease of this case before the expiration of the lease of this case. Since the lease of this case expired, the plaintiff sent the defendant a certificate of contents requesting delivery of the house of this case, and the defendant sent a certificate of contents that the lease of this case was delayed for at least two years during the lease period of this case.
According to the above facts, the lease contract of this case was terminated by the Plaintiff’s declaration of termination due to the expiration of the term or the Defendant’s declaration of termination due to the Defendant’s default of not less than two years, and thus, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant
2. The Defendant asserts that the instant lease agreement was implicitly renewed pursuant to Article 6(1) of the Housing Lease Protection Act.
However, if the rent in arrears reaches two terms, it does not have the effect of implied renewal under the above law.
The fact that the Defendant did not pay two or more vehicles during the term of the instant lease agreement is as seen earlier (Article 6(3) of the Housing Lease Protection Act). Thus, the instant lease agreement was implicitly renewed.
shall not be deemed to exist.
The burden of proof that the Defendant paid the rent is the lessee (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Da19647, Jan. 13, 2005, etc.). The evidence submitted by the Defendant alone that the Defendant did not delay the rent.
It is insufficient to recognize.
The first defendant's assertion is without merit on the premise different from this premise.
3. The plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable.