beta
Text
1. The Defendants are listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 1 among the real estate listed in the separate sheet to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On March 30, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with Defendant B, setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 5 million, monthly rent of KRW 750,00,00,000, and April 30, 2015, with the terms that the lease agreement is to be made (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) on the attached list 1, 2, 3, 4, 4, and 7,3,000 square meters inboard connected each point of Section 1, 3,000 in sequence, among the real estate listed in the attached list (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).
At the time of the instant lease agreement, the Plaintiff and Defendant B agreed that the sublease is not recognized.
B. After the instant lease agreement, Defendant B subleaseed the instant store to Defendant C, and on May 21, 2015, the Plaintiff violated the prohibition of sub-lease by Defendant B, which sent to Defendant B a content-certified mail stating the delivery of the instant store to the Plaintiff by August 31, 2015, and around that time, the content-certified mail reached the Defendant B.
[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 to 3 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings]
2. Determination as to the claim against the defendant B
A. According to the above facts, the lease of this case was lawfully terminated on August 31, 2015 due to Defendant B’s termination notice due to Defendant B’s breach of prohibition of sub-lease. Thus, Defendant B is obligated to deliver the instant store to the Plaintiff.
In addition, even if Defendant B did not sublet the instant store, the instant lease was renewed on April 30, 2015 as the previous lease terms and conditions, and even if the lessor, pursuant to Articles 639 and 635 of the Civil Act, the Plaintiff sent the instant lease to Defendant B around May 21, 2015, so long as the instant lease agreement was duly terminated on November 22, 2015, the instant lease agreement was deemed to have been duly terminated, and thus, Defendant B is obligated to deliver the instant store to the Plaintiff.
B. Defendant B, Defendant B,