beta
Text
1. At the same time, the defendant delivered No. 303 of the third floor of the third floor of the third floor of the third floor of the land outside C in the original city from the plaintiff, 65,000.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with Nonparty D (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with the lessee, D, the lessor, the lease deposit of KRW 65,00,000, and the contract term of KRW 2 years with respect to the three-storys of the third-storys of the non-party 1 parcel (hereinafter “the instant building”), both the Plaintiff and the non-party D entered into a lease agreement with the lessee, D, the lease deposit of KRW 65,00,000, and the lease contract period of KRW 2,000 (hereinafter “the instant lease agreement”), and completed the resident registration from January 26,
B. Around December 7, 2016, the instant building was transferred to the Defendant on or around September 12, 2017, respectively, from D to E. E. E. E. S. S. A. (C.).
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 and 3 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. According to each of the above facts finding as to the Plaintiff’s claim, the instant lease agreement was governed by the Housing Lease Protection Act (hereinafter “The Housing Lease Protection Act”), and the Defendant, who received the last building of this case pursuant to Article 3(4) of the Housing Lease Protection Act, succeeded to the lessor’s status under the instant lease agreement in sequence from D and E.S., and barring any special circumstance, it is determined that the instant lease agreement expired on January 25, 2018.
Therefore, the Defendant is obliged to return KRW 65,000,000 to the Plaintiff simultaneously with the delivery of the instant building from the Plaintiff.
B. The defendant's assertion and the judgment of the defendant are alleged to the effect that the plaintiff expressed his intention to extend the lease agreement of this case. However, there is no evidence to prove it, and the above assertion is without merit.
3. The plaintiff's assertion of conclusion is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.