beta
Text
1. The defendant shall receive KRW 80,000,000 from the plaintiff and at the same time real estate stated in the attached Table to the plaintiff.
Reasons
1. According to the purport of Gap evidence No. 1-1 as to the cause of the claim and the whole purport of the pleadings, the fact that on May 2, 2012, the plaintiff entered into a lease agreement to lease the instant real estate from May 14, 2012 to May 13, 2014 (hereinafter “the lease agreement in this case”) with the Defendant as KRW 80,000,000 (the lease agreement is KRW 70,000,000, and the details of the final agreement of the parties are KRW 80,000,000), and the period from May 14, 2012 to May 13, 2014.
The defendant asserts that the instant lease contract was renewed.
Where a tenant requests renewal of a contract between six months and one month before the expiration of the lease term, a lessor shall not refuse such request without justifiable grounds.
(Article 10(1) main sentence of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act: Provided, That this shall not apply where the lessee substantially violates the obligations of tenant or has a serious reason to make it difficult to continue the lease.
(Article 10(1)8 of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act (Article 10(1) of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act). According to the purport of the entire pleadings, although the Plaintiff and the Defendant tried to enter into a new lease contract at the time of the expiration of the instant lease contract, there was no agreement on facility costs or premiums, the issue of responsibility for the occurrence of an accident, such as fire, etc., and thereafter, there was a conflict in requesting the Plaintiff to deliver the instant real estate
Therefore, the lease relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant under the instant lease agreement constitutes a case where there is a “serious reason making it difficult to continue the lease,” and the Plaintiff, a lessor, may refuse to renew the lease agreement against the Defendant.
There is no evidence to deem that the Defendant requested renewal of the instant lease agreement, and even if so, the Plaintiff was required to renew the lease agreement for the same reason.