beta
Text
1. The plaintiff
A. Defendant B delivers a building listed in the separate sheet;
B. Defendant C, D, E, and F are each of the above buildings.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On August 10, 2006, the Plaintiff leased to Defendant B a building listed in the separate sheet owned by it (hereinafter “instant building”) with the lease deposit amount of KRW 2.5 million, monthly rent of KRW 8 million, and the lease period from August 10, 2006 to August 9, 2008.
B. However, Defendant B delayed the lease of at least two vehicles after the lease of the instant building, and the Plaintiff terminated the instant lease contract on May 20, 2013.
C. Meanwhile, Defendant C was on December 4, 2012; Defendant D was on October 15, 2013; Defendant E was on August 19, 2013; Defendant E was on August 19, 2010; and Defendant F was on June 26, 2012 and resided therein.
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap's 1 through 5, and 7 (including virtual numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the facts acknowledged above, the instant lease contract was terminated by the expiration of the period of validity or the termination of the Plaintiff’s contract, barring any special circumstance, Defendant B is obligated to deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff, and Defendant C, D, E, and F are also obligated to withdraw from the instant building as sought by the Plaintiff.
As to this, Defendant B’s assertion to the effect that he cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s claim until he is paid each of the above costs, since he installed urban gas in KRW 1 million in the instant building, disposed of waste in KRW 900,00,00 in the instant building, and installed facilities in charge of using the costs. However, the above ground does not constitute a ground for refusing the Plaintiff’s request for extradition, and thus, Defendant B’s above assertion
Even if Defendant B’s above assertion includes the claim of the lien that covers the above facility cost as the secured claim, the Defendant B agreed to pay the duty to restore the Plaintiff under the instant lease agreement. Thus, the claim of the lien is also reasonable.