Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The fact that there is no dispute over the basic facts [based for recognition], Gap 1-3 evidence, Eul 4 (including provisional numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings;
A. The Defendant leased a building located in Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-si C from the Plaintiff and occupied and used the building for the purpose of the wing factory, etc., and the specific details of the lease are as follows.
On June 30, 2005, the rent for the rent of KRW 10 million per month: from June 30, 2005 to June 24, 2007, the first [2] on April 30, 2007: the rent for the rent of KRW 5 million per month: a warehouse not registered on the ground from April 30, 2007 to April 24, 201 [30,000 for the rent of KRW 5 million: a warehouse not registered on the ground [3] on April 30, 2007.
B. While the Plaintiff and the Defendant continued to extend the term of lease upon mutual agreement, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant in 2012 seeking delivery of each of the instant real estate (Seoul District Court Decision 2012Da33282, hereinafter “former lawsuit”).
C. In the previous litigation process, the “decision in lieu of conciliation” as of January 7, 2013 (hereinafter “instant conciliation decision”) became final and conclusive, and the details thereof are as follows.
The plaintiff acknowledges that the defendant uses the real estate ① and ② by April 30, 2013 to the defendant, and the defendant delivers each of the above real estate to the plaintiff at the expiration of the above period.
The plaintiff shall pay 17 million won to the defendant by April 30, 2013.
The obligation of the defendant to deliver real estate and the obligation of the plaintiff to pay money are in the simultaneous performance relationship.
(3) This decision does not affect any legal relationship of a lease agreement on real estate.
2. The parties' assertion
A. On October 24, 2013, the Defendant transferred the instant real estate ① and ② real estate to the Plaintiff after the lapse of April 30, 2013, which was the delivery period stipulated in the instant conciliation decision.
Accordingly, the defendant on February 1, 2013.