(a) remove trees planted on the ground of 2,821 square meters above C in Macheon-si;

B. The above land;

A. 1) The facts of recognition are as follows: (a) 2,821 square meters prior to Macheon-si C (hereinafter “instant land”).

On April 28, 2006, the Plaintiff, the owner of the instant land, leased the instant land to the Defendant by setting the period from January 1, 2006 to 2010 (hereinafter “the instant lease”).

(2) After the lease of this case, approximately KRW 2,00 of pine trees were planted on the instant land.

3) The Defendant did not pay the Plaintiff KRW 400,000 for the annual rent of 2010. [The fact that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, evidence No. 1-3, evidence No. 1-2, and the purport of the entire pleadings]

B. According to the above facts, the lease of this case terminated at the expiration of the term, barring any special circumstance, the defendant is obligated to collect the trees planted on the land of this case from the plaintiff, deliver the land of this case, transfer them to the 400,000 won in arrears, and pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum of 20% per annum under the Civil Act from January 1, 2011 to June 23, 2014 (the delivery date of the complaint of this case), and from June 24, 2014 to the full payment date, to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 400,000 won per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, and to pay damages for delay equivalent to the amount of 400,000 won per annum from January 1, 201 to the delivery date of the above land.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The summary of the argument is that the defendant introduced D to the plaintiff upon the request of D, who is a landscaper, and only caused the plaintiff to enter into the instant lease contract, and the person who planted trees on the instant land is also D, and the plaintiff was also aware of such circumstances.

Therefore, since the actual lessee of the land of this case is D, it cannot respond to the plaintiff's request.

B. If the parties to the determination prepare in writing a disposal document, if the objective meaning of the language is clear, the existence and content of the declaration of intent should be recognized as stated in the language, barring special circumstances.

Supreme Court Decision 2009Da92487 Decided May 13, 2010, etc.