beta
Text
1. Of the instant lawsuit, the part seeking removal of the facilities in the real estate listed in the separate sheet shall be dismissed.
2. The defendant.
Reasons
1. Of the instant lawsuit, the purport of the instant lawsuit ought to be specifically specified in a civil lawsuit to clearly identify the content and scope of the claim in a judgment as to whether the part seeking the removal of facilities in the instant real estate is lawful (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2007Da53785, Nov. 12, 2009; 201Da17090, Sept. 8, 2011). As such, a lawsuit for which the purport of the claim is not specifically specified ought to be dismissed by illegality.
ex officio, as to the legitimacy of the part seeking removal of facilities in the instant real estate among the instant lawsuits, the health room and the purport of the instant claim cannot be clearly identified as to which form the Defendant should remove facilities installed in any of the above real estate.
Accordingly, where a judgment is rendered in accordance with the above purport of the claim, the order of the judgment results in the result that it is impossible to enforce it as an executive body because it does not meet the specific nature of the judgment.
Therefore, among the instant lawsuits, the part seeking removal of the facilities in the instant real estate is unlawful as the purport of the claim is not specified.
2. Determination as to the delivery of the instant real estate and the payment of unpaid rent or claim for return of unjust enrichment
A. In full view of the overall purport of pleadings as to the cause of the claim Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including serial numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the defendant on June 4, 2012, stipulating that the lease deposit for the instant real estate shall be KRW 40,500,000, monthly rent shall be KRW 3,100,000, and the lease period shall be from June 5, 2012 to June 4, 2015. The plaintiff and the defendant agreed to reduce the rent of KRW 2,40,000 from June 5, 2012 to June 4, 2015. The plaintiff and the defendant agreed to reduce the rent of KRW 2,40,00,000 from June 5, 201 to June 4, 2015.