beta
Text
1. The Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) is the Busan Jin-gu C ground reinforced concrete roof.
Reasons
1. The facts following the facts do not conflict between the parties, or are recognized in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings as evidence Nos. 1, 2, 2, 6, 8-1, 2, and 4 as evidence Nos. 1-1, 1-2, 8-2, and 4.
A. On June 14, 2003, the Plaintiff leased to the Defendant the store listed in the disposition No. 1 (hereinafter “instant store”) around 1999, but leased the lease deposit of KRW 10,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 900,000, monthly rent of KRW 100,000, monthly management fee of KRW 100,000, and 12 months during the lease term of 12 months, and then the lease is renewed without termination, and the lease is renewed without termination on May 23, 200, KRW 10,000, monthly rent of KRW 90,000, monthly rent of KRW 90,000, and the lease term of 12 months.
B. The Plaintiff was paid monthly from the Defendant to July 22, 2008.
C. Around March 31, 2009, the Plaintiff terminated the instant lease agreement on the grounds that the Defendant was in arrears with more than two vehicles. Around that time, the Plaintiff’s declaration of intention to terminate the said lease reached the Defendant.
From May 2008, the Defendant did not run the business at the instant store.
2. Determination on the main claim
A. According to the facts of the above recognition as to the request for delivery of a building, the instant lease contract was terminated on March 31, 2009 by the Plaintiff’s notice of termination on the ground of more than two rent-to-rents, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant store to the Plaintiff.
In this regard, the defendant allowed the third party to sublease the store of this case. Nevertheless, the defendant filed the lawsuit of this case and prevented the defendant from returning the premium, etc. invested in the store of this case. Thus, the lawsuit of this case is contrary to the principle of gold speech, and the defendant cannot comply with the plaintiff's request for extradition since necessary expenses and beneficial expenses were paid to the store of this case. However, it is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff permitted the sub-lease of the store of this case to the third party, and it is different.