beta
Text
1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s main claim and the defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff)'s counterclaim are dismissed, respectively.
2. Of the costs of lawsuit.
Reasons
1. As to the principal lawsuit
A. On July 22, 2004, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with D on April 2, 2004 with respect to the building listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant building 12”) and the second floor C ground building 11 of Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, Nam-gu, Incheon, the number of housing units adjacent thereto (hereinafter “instant building 11”). On June 20, 2004, the registration of ownership transfer for the building No. 11 was completed on the ground of sale and purchase on June 20, 2004. (2) As to the building No. 11, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with D on April 2, 2005 with respect to the building No. 2 million won and KRW 50,000 (payment on April 5, 2005) with respect to the building No. 11, the lease agreement in the form of “A lease agreement” in each column (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).
3) After entering into the instant lease agreement, the Defendant was paid KRW 2 million as lease deposit and KRW 200,000,000 from May 2005 to August 2005. At present, the Defendant is occupying and using the instant building No. 12 (the above fact was not disputed by the Defendant, and the building No. 12 is the Defendant’s domicile), [the fact that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, the entry of evidence No. 1-2, and evidence No. 1-2, and the purport of the entire pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings.
B. 1) According to the above facts as to the grounds for the claim for delivery of a building, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant building No. 12 possessed by the Defendant, the owner of the instant building, to the Plaintiff, barring any special circumstance.
B. As to the defense of this case, the Defendant concluded a lease agreement with a separate lease deposit and rent-free on condition that the Defendant paid 4,080,400 won, etc., which had already been overdue by the Plaintiff as to each of the buildings of this case, and accordingly, the Defendant asserted to the effect that there exists a legitimate possessory right to occupy the building of this case as provided in subparagraph 12.