beta
Text
1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s main claim and the defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff)'s counterclaim are dismissed, respectively.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The deceased C (hereinafter “the deceased”) was the ownership of the instant real estate. Around July 1993, the term of lease was set from July 15, 1993 to September 15, 1994 for the leased portion of the instant real estate, as KRW 2 million, monthly rent, and KRW 140,000 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).
B. The monthly rent on the leased portion of the instant case was raised from 2000 to 290,000 won per month.
C. After the death of the deceased, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer in its sole name on the ground of the agreement on the division of inherited property as of January 23, 2010 on June 14, 2010.
From May 27, 2014, the Plaintiff expressed his/her intent to refuse to renew the instant lease agreement to the Defendant, and filed the instant lawsuit with the same purport around October 8, 2014.
E. On July 28, 2015, the Defendant delivered the leased portion of the instant case to the Plaintiff.
[Ground of recognition] The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap's 1 through 3 (including each number for additional cases) and the purport of whole pleading
2. Determination
A. In the case of a lease of a house to determine the claim for main claim, the term of lease determined to be less than two years shall be deemed to be two years (Article 4(1) of the Housing Lease Protection Act), and an agreement contrary to the Housing Lease Protection Act and disadvantageous to the lessee is invalid
(Article 10 of the Housing Lease Protection Act (Article 10 of the Housing Lease Protection Act). The lease period of the instant lease agreement shall be two years from July 1993 to July 30, 1995.
However, the lease contract of this case was implicitly renewed, and the plaintiff expressed his/her intention of rejection of renewal while filing and proceeding the lawsuit of this case, and the defendant does not dispute the termination of the lease contract of this case on July 30, 2015. Accordingly, it is reasonable to deem that the lease of this case was terminated by the expiration of the period of July 30, 2015.
However, there is a problem.