beta
Text
1.(a)
Defendant C received KRW 35,00,000 from the Plaintiffs, and at the same time, indicated the Plaintiffs on the attached real estate.
Reasons
1. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the plaintiffs entered into a lease deposit contract with the defendant C on April 12, 2007 with the lease deposit of KRW 35 million, monthly rent of KRW 1.6 million (excluding value-added tax), and the lease contract with the defendant C from April 1, 2007 to March 31, 2008 (hereinafter "this contract"), and then delivered it. After which the contract of this case was renewed each year under the same conditions, the plaintiffs sent to the defendant C a certificate of intent to terminate the contract of this case on the grounds of the expiration of the period of validity, the above content certification was served on the defendant C, the fact that the defendant D's husband occupied the business of this case together with the defendant C as the husband of this case.
B. According to the above facts of recognition, the instant contract terminated on March 31, 2012, and thus, Defendant C is obligated to deliver the instant store to the Plaintiffs at the same time receiving KRW 35 million from the Plaintiffs as the lease deposit for the instant contract.
In addition, according to the above facts of recognition, Defendant D is not a simple assistant in possession of Defendant C, but an illegal occupant who occupies the instant store without any title as a joint occupant. Therefore, Defendant D is obligated to deliver the instant store to the Plaintiffs, who are the owners.
(See Supreme Court Decision 98Da16456, 16463 delivered on June 26, 1998, see Supreme Court Decision 98Da16456, 16463. The Plaintiffs also stated in the purport of the claim that Defendant D had the duty to deliver the instant store and the duty to return the deposit money to the Plaintiffs as if they were in a simultaneous performance relationship, but they appear to have
A. The Defendants asserted implied renewal, even after December 22, 201, are the Plaintiffs.