beta
Text
1. The defendant
(a) Attached drawings 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 7, 7, among the area of 159.3 square meters in Suwon-gu Busan Metropolitan City;
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff is an owner of 159.3 square meters in Suwon-gu, Busan Metropolitan City.
B. On September 14, 2015, the Defendant: (a) was the owner of a structure (a) installed on the ground of (a) part 17.3 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”); (b) the Plaintiff and the instant land, the monthly rent of KRW 500,000,000, and the contract term of KRW 24 months (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) connected each point of (a) in sequence, including (b) 1,2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 17, and 17.3 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).
C. From April 27, 2017, the Plaintiff demanded the Defendant to remove structures and deliver the instant land to the Defendant on several occasions on the grounds of the expiration of the lease term.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 5, and 7, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. According to the above recognition of the cause of the claim, since the lease contract of this case was terminated upon the expiration of the period, the defendant is obligated to deliver the land of this case after removing the structure to the plaintiff.
B. The defendant's assertion asserts that since the defendant has the right to demand the plaintiff to renew the lease agreement of this case pursuant to Article 10 (2) of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act, the plaintiff cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim.
However, according to the defendant's assertion, the object leased by the plaintiff to the defendant is not a structure on the land of this case, but the land of this case, so the lease contract of this case is not subject to the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act.
Even if it is not so, there is no evidence to prove that the defendant demanded the renewal of the contract within six months from the expiration date of the instant lease contract.
We cannot accept the defendant's argument.
3. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion is justified and accepted.