beta
Text
1. The defendant shall indicate, among the second floor of the real estate listed in the attached list, the annexed drawings (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), and (6).
Reasons
1. In full view of the purport of Gap evidence No. 1-2, Gap evidence No. 1-2, and Eul evidence No. 2 as to the cause of the claim and the purport of the whole pleadings, the plaintiff, as the owner of real estate listed in the attached Table No. 1-2, which is the publicly constructed rental house, on April 26, 201, entered into a lease contract with the defendant by setting lease deposit amount of KRW 11,50,00,000, monthly rent of KRW 96,200, and KRW 96,200 on April 26, 201 (hereinafter referred to as "the lease contract of this case") as the owner of real estate listed in the attached Table No. 1-2, which is the publicly constructed rental house No. 1,3,4,5,600 square meters in the second floor of real estate listed in the attached Table No. 1-2, which is the owner of real estate.
According to the above facts, the lease contract of this case was terminated upon the expiration of the term.
Therefore, the defendant is obligated to deliver the building of this case to the plaintiff, except in special circumstances.
2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion
A. The defendant asserted that while residing in B without permission building located in B, the land redevelopment project of the district would be forced to leave the land at the place of residence due to the C district redevelopment project and demanded the Seoul Metropolitan Government and the Cheongdae to establish relocation measures. Ultimately, the plaintiff was occupied in the building of this case by arbitration of the National Civil Rights Commission of Korea. The plaintiff's claim for the renewal of the lease contract and the surrender of the building on the ground that the plaintiff did not meet the above qualification is illegal, since the defendant did not make the contract of this case on the condition that the basic living beneficiary, Han parent, and the disabled are not subject to the requirement for occupancy. In addition, the plaintiff's employee "the defendant is residing in the building of this case until the defendant moved in