beta
Text
1. The defendant shall deliver to the plaintiff the real estate stated in the attached list.
2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.
3...
Reasons
1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the evidence Nos. 1 through 4 of the judgment on the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with Nonparty B on March 21, 2014, setting the lease deposit of KRW 1,993,00, monthly rent of KRW 39,730, and the lease period of January 31, 2016 with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant apartment”), which is permanent rental housing owned by the Plaintiff, (hereinafter “instant apartment”), and B died on October 2, 2014, and the Defendant asserted as a de facto marital spouse B was currently residing in the instant apartment. Since the lease agreement of this case expired on January 31, 2016, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant apartment to the Plaintiff, barring special circumstances.
2. As to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant asserted that the Defendant failed to file a marriage report and a move-in report in light of the circumstances, but the other brothers and sisters in B gave up inheritance, and that the Defendant was selected as a recipient of basic living benefits on December 15, 2015, and thus, he could succeed to B’s status under Article 13(5) of the Operation and Management Standards of Permanent Rental Housing. Accordingly, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff’s claim cannot be complied with.
It is insufficient to view that the Defendant was in a de facto marital relationship with B solely with the statement in the evidence No. 1, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise (no evidence exists to prove that B’s inheritor renounced inheritance). Meanwhile, Article 13(5) of the Operation and Management Standard of Permanent Rental Housing provides that “where the remaining household members within the grace period fall under the “beneficiary, etc., etc.,” the succession to the status may be allowed pursuant to the proviso of Article 8(11).” However, as recognized by the Defendant himself, unless the marriage report and move-in report are not made, it is difficult to view that the Defendant constituted “the remaining household members” as stipulated in the above provision.
Therefore, the defendant's above argument is justified.