beta
Text
1. Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) B is paid KRW 5,00,000 from the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and is also written in attached Table 1.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On March 7, 2012, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with the former owner E and deposit KRW 5 million, monthly rent of KRW 400,000 from March 7, 2012 to March 7, 2013 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with respect to the size of 23 square meters on the ship (a) connecting each point of the 1, 2, 3, and 44,000 square meters of the attached drawings among the 1st floor of the Seoul Mapo-gu D Ground Building (hereinafter “instant commercial building”). Since then, the instant lease agreement was explicitly renewed.
B. E sold the instant commercial building to F on September 15, 2014, and F sold the instant commercial building to the Plaintiff on September 24, 2015, and on January 13, 2015, the Plaintiff succeeded to the lessor’s status of the instant commercial building upon completing the registration of ownership transfer on January 13, 2015, and the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to increase the lessor’s status of the instant commercial building at KRW 50,000 per month. The instant lease was implicitly renewed.
C. On December 14, 2016, the Plaintiff and the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to deliver the instant real estate by no later than March 7, 2017, by sending a certificate of content to the Counterclaim C, which jointly operates the real estate brokerage office in the instant commercial building, and the Defendant became aware of the same content.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of whole pleadings
2. According to the above facts finding as to the claim of the principal claim, the instant lease contract was implicitly renewed, and the period of five years has elapsed since the date of conclusion, and as seen earlier, it is recognized that the Plaintiff’s refusal to renew the lease contract terminated on March 7, 2017.
In this regard, the defendant asserts to the effect that the plaintiff's certificate of termination of the lease contract of this case was only notified to the Lessee, and it is not notified to the defendant who is the lessee.