beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On December 29, 2009, the Plaintiff and B purchased a building of this case from the Seo-gu, Seowon-gu, Seowon-gu, Cheongju-si, 622.7 square meters. From that time, the Plaintiff and B newly constructed a building listed in paragraph (1) of the attached Table (hereinafter “instant building”).
The building of this case constitutes a room listed in attached Table Nos. 101, 102, and 103 on the first floor.
- Three heading rooms, and 201 heading rooms listed in paragraph 3 of the attached Table 201 on the second floor;
202-2 2 heading rooms
(hereinafter referred to as the “instant 101 room”). The Plaintiff and B completed the registration of initial ownership on February 14, 201 as co-owners of one-half shares of each of the instant rooms.
B. (i) The Plaintiff and B leased the instant 101 room and 102 room and the instant 1/2 of the rent received from the lessees each month.
B. On October 26, 2010, the Plaintiff and B stated that the Defendant’s “104” as to the leased object under the instant 103 real lease agreement (Evidence A2) is a clerical error.
(The fact that the part leased by the Defendant among the instant buildings is the head office of 103,00,000 won for lease deposit and for the term of January 30, 201 to January 30, 2016, the lease deposit amount was set at KRW 650,000,000,000 for lease deposit.
(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). Around that time, the Defendant received KRW 325 million each as the lease deposit.
Consolidatedly, the Plaintiff used the instant 201 room, and B used the instant 202 room, respectively.
C. On April 11, 2014, the Defendant purchased 1/2 shares in each of the units of the instant building from B, and completed the registration of transfer of all B shares in each of the units of the instant building on April 16, 2014.
(i) Disputes over the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s Office Nos. 103 and 201 (hereinafter “Defendant”) against the Plaintiff on October 2, 2014, without consultation with the Defendant, who is a joint right holder of 1/2 of the Plaintiff.