beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff:
(a) Defendant B and C deliver the real estate listed in the separate sheet;
B. Defendant B shall be as from August 15, 2016.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On September 12, 2014, the Plaintiff’s agent E entered into a lease agreement with Defendant B, stating that the lease deposit is KRW 5,000,000 for the instant building, KRW 470,00 per month of rent (excluding value-added tax, prepaid), and the lease period shall be from August 15, 2014 to August 14, 2015, but it may not be sub-lease without the lessor’s consent, and may be immediately terminated if the rent is not paid for two or more years of delay (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). The lease agreement was explicitly renewed thereafter.
B. As Defendant B was in arrears from August 15, 2016, the Plaintiff, on January 16, 2017, notified the said Defendant of the termination of the instant lease agreement, and filed the instant lawsuit.
C. At present, the instant building is possessed by Defendant C.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 to 3 evidence (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination:
A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the lease contract of this case was lawfully terminated by the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case containing the Plaintiff’s declaration of termination due to the delinquency in rent by Defendant B, and thus, Defendant B is obligated to deliver the building of this case and pay the unpaid rent and unjust enrichment equivalent to the rents.
In addition, Defendant C has a duty to deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff seeking the exclusion of disturbance based on ownership, as it occupies the instant building without title, barring any special circumstance.
Meanwhile, while the Plaintiff sought delivery of the building on the premise that Defendant D occupied the building of this case with Defendant C, it is not sufficient to recognize that Defendant D occupied the building of this case at the time of the conclusion of pleadings, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this differently. Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant D is without merit.
B. Defendant B’s assertion