beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is all dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Defendant leased and occupied and used the instant store from D on December 14, 2006. However, the Plaintiffs and E purchased the instant building from D on August 9, 2012, and the Plaintiff purchased the instant building from D on August 9, 2012, and completed the registration of ownership transfer as to the Plaintiff’s share 9/20, and the Plaintiff’s share 8/20, respectively, with respect to the Plaintiff’s share 8/20, and E completed the registration of ownership
B. On January 10, 2013, the Plaintiffs agreed that the said lease contract may be terminated immediately if the lessee fails to pay two or more rents (hereinafter “instant lease contract”) to the Defendant, with the content that the lease contract will be leased as one year from January 10, 2013 to January 9, 2014 (hereinafter “the lease contract”).
C. Meanwhile, on the other hand, the Defendant did not pay to the Plaintiffs the rent for May 2013, January 2014, March 2014, and April 17, 2014. On July 17, 2014, the Plaintiffs sent to the Defendant a written notification stating that the instant lease contract is terminated on the grounds that two or more rents are unpaid, and such written notification reached the Defendant on July 21, 2014.
[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 7, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the facts found in the judgment as to the cause of the claim, the instant lease contract was lawfully terminated in accordance with the plaintiffs' termination notice on the grounds of not less than two years of delay in rent. Thus, the defendant is obligated to deliver the instant store to the plaintiffs, barring any special circumstances.
3. The defendant's assertion argues that since the defendant paid all of the overdue rent of KRW 4,500,000 to the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs cannot terminate the lease contract of this case on the ground of the overdue rent of at least two years.
According to the evidence No. 1, the defendant was the plaintiffs on July 23, 2014.