beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. 1) The Defendant is the owner of the real estate indicated in the attached Form (the building among them is demolished on August 30, 2018 and remains only at present.
All of the land and buildings below referred to as “instant real estate”
(2) As to the instant real estate, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant on May 9, 200 with regard to the instant real estate, with a deposit of KRW 100 million, monthly rent of KRW 3.8 million, lease term of KRW 24 months from May 19, 2009, ② a deposit of KRW 100 million on March 26, 2012, monthly rent of KRW 700,000,000 from May 14, 2012 to May 14, 2017 (hereinafter collectively collectively collectively referred to as the “instant lease agreement”), and operated the “C” in the instant real estate from around that time.
(The following is the tenant's name is the tenant's lease contract and the tenant's name is D, but this case is not a key issue).
The Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the termination of the instant lease agreement by content-certified mail on November 7, 2016 and February 6, 2017. The Defendant notified the Plaintiff that the instant lease agreement will not be renewed due to the expiration of the period on May 14, 2017. The said notification was delivered to the Plaintiff around that time.
C. On April 13, 2017, the Defendant asserted that the instant lease agreement will be terminated upon the expiration of the period on May 14, 2017 and filed a extradition suit against the Plaintiff. On July 13, 2017, the Defendant was awarded a favorable judgment at the first instance court (Seoul District Court Branch Branch Decision 2017Gahap101941), and on January 25, 2018, issued a favorable judgment to order the delivery even at the appellate court on January 25, 2018, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on May 16, 2018 (Seoul High Court Decision 2017Na54626, Supreme Court Decision 2018Da215466, Supreme Court Decision 2018Da21546666, hereinafter referred to as “prior suit”).
(2) The first time of the instant lease agreement was at issue in a prior suit, and the appellate court did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the time when the first contract was concluded.