Where the residential and non-residential parts of one building become the object of lease, the criteria for applying the Housing Lease Protection Act;

In general, if the residential and non-residential parts of one building become the object of lease and are used in accordance with the purpose of lease, the Housing Lease Protection Act shall apply to the whole and if the non-residential part is incidental to the non-residential part, and if the main purpose of the building is non-residential part, the Act shall not apply to the opposing part. The issue of whether the main purpose of the building is non-residential part shall be determined jointly in consideration of the location, structure, objective purpose, and actual use relation of the building.

Article 2 of the Housing Lease Protection Act

East Petroleum Co., Ltd.

Jeong-man et al.

1. The plaintiff among the buildings listed in the attached list

가. 피고 정순자는 별지 제3호도면의 1,2,3,4,5,6,1의 각 점을 순차연결한 ㈎,㈏,㈐,㈑,㈒,㈓ 표시부분 건평 75.7평방미터를,

나. 피고 장구환은 별지 제1호 도면의 8,9,10,11,8의 각 점을 순차연결한 ㈕,㈖,㈗,㈘ 표시부분 건평 38.7평방미터를,

다. 피고 한창일은 별지 제2호 도면의 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,1의 각 점을 순차연결한 ㈎,㈏,㈐,㈑,㈒,㈓ 표시부분 130.5평방미터를 각 명도하라.

2. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant Byung-hee is dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant U2Shee is assessed against the remainder of the Defendants.

4. The above paragraph (1) can be provisionally executed.

주문 제1항과 같은 취지 및 피고 유충희는 원고에게 별지목록 기재 건물중 별지 제1호 도면의 ⑶,⑷,⑸,⑹,⑺,⑻,⑼,⑶의 각 점을 순차연결한 ㈎,㈏,㈐,㈑,㈒,㈔표시부분 57.8평방미터를 명도하라.

The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendants and a declaration of provisional execution.

1. Determination as to the plaintiff's claim against the defendant Lee Jong-soo

In full view of the statement No. 1 (No. 1) without dispute in the establishment, the results of the on-site inspection by this court, and the results of the appraisal by the panel of the appraiser and South Korea, the building recorded in the attached list is subject to the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the plaintiff, and the defendant Jeong Jong-dae may recognize the fact that the building in the attached list has been occupied by the number of pages No. 1,23,4,5,6, and1 of the drawings No. 3 among the above building with the number of pages No. 3 (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f), and there is no counter-proof otherwise.

According to the above facts, since the above building shall be presumed to be owned by the plaintiff, the above defendant has a duty to inform the plaintiff of the above occupied part in this case where there is no evidence to prove that the above possessed part can be occupied and used.

2. Determination as to the Plaintiff’s claim on the replacement of Defendant’s outfit

As to the plaintiff's assertion that (h), (i), (j), and (k) portion of the attached sheet No. 1's 8,9,10,11, and 8 are possessed and used without legitimate title, the above defendant did not appear at the date of pleading of this case even though he was duly summoned pursuant to service by public notice, and did not clearly dispute the plaintiff's assertion because he did not submit the reply and other legal brief, and therefore, the above defendant is obligated to inform the plaintiff of the above portion of possession in this case where there is no assertion and proof of legitimate right to use the above portion of possession.

3. Determination as to the plaintiff's claim against the defendant U2Shee

The fact that the building listed in the attached list is owned by the plaintiff is not a dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant UPS. In full view of the on-site verification results of this court and the whole purport of the arguments in the appraisal results of the appraiser's division, the fact that the above defendant successively connects each point of (a), (b), (c), (d), (d), (e), (f), (g) and (g) among the above buildings, that the above defendant possessed the 57.8 square meters of the display portion of the attached list, and there is no counter-proof otherwise.

The plaintiff asserted the ownership of the above building and sought the above order of the non-party 1 to the above non-party 8. The above order of the non-party 1 to the non-party 1 to the non-party 2 was 7 years old, and the non-party 1 to the non-party 4 to the non-party 8. The non-party 1 to the above order of the non-party 1 to the non-party 2 to the non-party 1 to the non-party 5. The non-party 2 to the non-party 5. The non-party 1 to the non-party 5. The non-party 1 to the non-party 5. The non-party 1 to the non-party 5. The non-party 2's office building's non-party 1 to the non-party 5. The non-party 1 to the non-party 5. The non-party 2's office building's non-party 1 to the non-party 5. The non-party 1 to the plaintiff 2's office's office will be established.

According to the above facts, on August 18, 1984, the defendant Punghee leased the above occupied portion from the defendant Jong-hee, who was the owner of the above building, and completed the move-in report on September 7 of the same month, and the above leased part was delivered on September 7 of the same year, and came to have opposing power against third parties. Under the above lease agreement, the status of the lessor was succeeded to the above leased building on January 14, 1985 by purchasing the above leased building on the condition that he succeeded to the lease with no fixed period of time from August 18, 1985, and the lease period was expired. The plaintiff acquired the ownership of the above building by acquiring the ownership of the above building from the right to collateral security as of January 17, 1985, and therefore the above defendant can oppose the plaintiff by the above lease. Thus, the above defendant's claim for objection against the plaintiff is groundless.

4. Determination on the Plaintiff’s claim for Defendant Han Chang-il

The fact that the building indicated in the attached list is owned by the plaintiff and the defendant Han Chang-il, which connects each point of (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (e) and (f) of the attached list No. 2 among the above buildings, is owned by the plaintiff and the fact that the ownership of the building listed in the attached list is owned by 130.5 square meters among the above buildings is not a dispute between the plaintiff and the above defendant.

With respect to the plaintiff's assertion of ownership of the above building and seeking an order of the above part of possession to the above defendant, the above defendant is merely a part of the right to collateral security established on the above building before January 17, 1985, which is the premise for the plaintiff's acquisition of ownership. On June 1, 1982, the above part of the right to collateral security is 8,00,000 won for lease, and the period of move-in report was completed on August 19, 1983 after the lease of three years. Thus, the plaintiff cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim before being returned 8,00,000 won for lease under the Housing Lease Protection Act. Since the above part of the right to collateral security established on the above building is a private teaching institute, the above part of the right to collateral security established on the above building cannot be applied to the above owner's right to collateral for the purpose of use of the above building 1,000 square meters for 1,000 square meters for the above residential building.

5. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case against the defendant Jeong-hee, the defendant's gear exchange, and the defendant Han Chang-il is justified and accepted all of them, and the claim against the defendant Han-hee is dismissed unfairly. It is so decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 89 and 92 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 199 of the same Act, Article 6 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings with respect to the declaration of provisional execution.

Judges Kim Jong-bong (Presiding Judge)