beta
Text
1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.
Reasons
1. The following facts may be acknowledged based on Gap evidence Nos. 1-2, 3, Gap evidence Nos. 4, 6, and Eul evidence No. 1-2, 1-3, and the whole purport of the pleadings. A.
The Plaintiffs, around June 3, 201, concluded each lease contract with the Defendant by setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 5,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 440,000, and the lease term as of September 24, 2013, respectively, for each underground floor among the Seo-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City D ground buildings (hereinafter “instant building”) owned by the Defendant, as of June 3, 201, and occupied and used each leased part.
B. The Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the instant building on December 17, 2014 to E and F on the grounds of sale on December 14 of the same year.
2. Judgment on the grounds of the plaintiffs' claims
A. On August 1, 2014, the Defendant promised to pay KRW 50,000,000 to the Plaintiffs, a lessee, when selling the instant building within 2014. Since the instant building was sold to a third party on December 17, 2014, the Defendant is obligated to pay KRW 50,000,000 to the Plaintiffs as well as damages for delay.
B. The written evidence No. 7 (Recording) alone cannot be deemed to have reached a conclusive agreement between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant as alleged by the Plaintiffs. In the event that the Defendant sells the instant building, it is a content of consultation with the Plaintiffs on the payment of a certain amount on the condition that the Plaintiffs deliver each leased part, and according to the written evidence No. 2, the Defendant sold the instant building, and acknowledged the fact that the buyers agreed with the buyer to succeed to the lessor’s status. As long as the Defendant guaranteed the lease term of the Plaintiffs, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiffs are liable to pay the money in the name of the premium to the Plaintiffs, and the Plaintiffs transferred the leased part to a third party against the Defendant.