20 Gaz. 5216281 Delivery of Building

1. A;

2. B

[Judgment of the court below]

[Defendant-Appellee]

C

Law Firm Tae (LLC) LLC

Attorney Kim Jong-kon

November 12, 2020

December 24, 2020

1. The defendant shall receive KRW 180,000,000 from the plaintiffs, and at the same time deliver the real estate listed in the separate sheet to the plaintiffs.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

3. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On June 5, 2012, Nonparty D, the former owner of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as “the instant real estate”), was leased the instant real estate to the Defendant by setting the lease deposit of KRW 180,000,000 and the lease term from July 9, 2012 to July 8, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as “the instant lease agreement”).

B. The instant lease agreement has been implicitly renewed, and the expiration date of the instant lease agreement was July 8, 2020 due to the final implied renewal (the term of validity of the instant lease agreement was implicitly renewed on July 9, 2018 and extended two years until July 8, 2020). On June 12, 2019, before the expiration date of the instant lease agreement, the Plaintiffs acquired the ownership of the instant real estate by obtaining a successful bid of the instant real estate in the compulsory sale procedure conducted on the instant real estate and completing the registration of ownership transfer in the future (the Plaintiff A9/10 shares, Plaintiff B1/10 shares), and succeeded to the lessor’s status under the instant lease agreement. The Plaintiff notified the Defendant that the instant lease agreement was not renewed by mail on January 9, 2020, within the period for which the rejection of the renewal of the lease agreement can be made pursuant to Article 6(1) of the Housing Lease Protection Act.

D. On June 3, 2020, the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to return the lease deposit by July 8, 2020, which is the expiration date of the instant lease agreement, after receiving the content-certified mail stating the Plaintiff’s expression of refusal to renew the said contract from the Plaintiff A, and the said content-certified mail reached the Plaintiff A on June 4, 2020.

E. The defendant occupies the real estate of this case until now.

[Grounds for recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence 1 through 4 (including branch numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

According to the above facts, the contract of this case was terminated on July 8, 2020 by notifying the defendant of his refusal to renew the lease contract within the period during which the plaintiff A may refuse to renew the lease contract pursuant to Article 6 (1) of the Housing Lease Protection Act, and the contract of this case was terminated on July 8, 2020. The plaintiffs' obligation to return the lease deposit to the defendant upon the termination of the lease contract of this case and the obligation to deliver the real estate of this case to the defendant is a simultaneous performance relationship.

Unless there exist circumstances, the Defendant is obliged to receive KRW 180,000,000 from the Plaintiffs, and at the same time deliver the instant real estate to the Plaintiffs.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The defendant's argument

In the event there are two or more parties to a contract, the termination or termination of the contract shall be made against all or some of them (Article 547(1) of the Civil Act). Therefore, in order for the plaintiffs to lawfully terminate the lease contract of this case, the plaintiffs must express their intent of termination, and this shall also apply to the case where they notify the defendant of the refusal to renew the lease contract of this case as of January 9, 2020. However, in the case of this case, the plaintiff A alone notified the defendant of the refusal to renew the lease of this case as of January 9, 2020, and thus, the notification of the refusal to renew the lease of this case is null and void. Therefore, the lease of this case of this case is renewed implicitly, and continues to exist until July 8, 2022. Accordingly, the plaintiffs' claim of this case

B. Determination

On January 9, 2020, it is clear that the content of the Plaintiff A sent the contract to the Defendant as of January 9, 2020 is not the content that the contract of this case is terminated even if the contract of this case remains due to the Defendant’s default, but the content that the contract of this case is terminated any longer, and it is distinguishable from the termination of the contract of this case on the grounds that the lessee’s default is due to the lessee’s default, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 265Da2501, May 29, 2005). Further, the “declaration of intention to terminate the lease” is distinguishable from the expression of intention to lose its validity in the future while the lease is in force, the “declaration of intention to cancel the lease” is no longer extended on the premise that the lease contract of this case is terminated upon the expiration of the term. However, even if there are several persons sharing the object of the lease, the indivisible provision of termination under Article 547(1) of the Civil Act cannot be deemed as being applied to the notification of rejection of the lease of this case.

Therefore, the plaintiff A, who is a majority of the real estate of this case, can independently notify the refusal to renew the lease contract of this case as an act of management of the jointly owned property. Thus, the prior defendant's above assertion is without merit on different premise.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition by admitting it.

Judges Domen

A person shall be appointed.