beta
Text
1. The Defendants are each real estate listed in the separate sheet from May 1, 2017 to KRW 30 million from the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On December 31, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendants on the lease deposit of KRW 30 million (the remainder payment date as of March 28, 2016), KRW 2.5 million (payment on the last day of each month) monthly rent (the end of each month), and from March 28, 2016 to March 27, 2018, with the term of lease fixed from March 28, 2016 to which the Defendants leased each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).
B. According to the instant lease agreement, the Defendants paid the lease deposit to the Plaintiff in full, and acquired the instant real estate from the Plaintiff and possessed and used it until now.
C. The Defendants did not pay the rent from May 1, 2017. On August 2, 2017, the Plaintiff sent a content-certified mail demanding the termination of the lease contract and the delivery of the instant real estate, which is the leased object, to the original state due to the restoration to the original state, and reached the Defendant around that time.
[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap 2 and 3 evidence (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply)
(2) Each entry and the purport of the whole pleading
2. According to the above facts of recognition, the instant lease agreement was lawfully terminated by the Plaintiff’s notice of termination on the grounds of the Defendant’s delay in rent, barring any special circumstances, and thus, the Defendants are obligated to deliver the instant real estate, which is the leased object, to the Plaintiff by restitution.
As to this, the Defendants’ substance of the instant lease agreement is ① a partnership agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendants (the Plaintiff’s investment in a know-how and a store for food service, and the Defendants’ investment in the amount of store facility costs and operating funds, etc.). It is merely a mere fact that the Plaintiff’s request for extradition based on the premise that the lease agreement is valid is unfair, and the Plaintiff’s request for extradition is illegitimate without the consent of the Defendants.