토지인도
1. The Defendant collected trees planted on the land area of 992 square meters and D 1,980 square meters in order to the Plaintiff at the time of netcheon-si, and collected each of the above land.
1. Determination as to the cause of claim
(a) The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or may be acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the respective entries and arguments in Gap evidence 1-1, 2, 3, and 2-2 and the whole purport of the pleadings:
1) On March 30, 2011, the Defendant: (a) leased from the Plaintiff the instant lease agreement to restore it to its original state after the expiration of the period from April 1, 2011 to March 30, 201 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).
(2) The Plaintiff did not raise an objection within a reasonable period after March 30, 2016, which was the expiration date of the instant lease agreement.
3) Of the 2,972 square meters in 1,980 square meters in 1,980 square meters in 1,000 square meters in 14, June 14, 2018, the land was divided into 992 square meters in D, 992 square meters and E, and the land was combined with D, September 4, 2018, in 2018 (hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant land”).
B. According to the above facts, the instant lease was renewed without setting the period under the same condition after the expiration of the period pursuant to Article 639(1) of the Civil Act.
However, the lease contract of this case terminated on March 30, 2019, and since the Defendant leased each of the instant land, there is no dispute between the parties that planted and managed landscaping trees on each of the instant land from the date of the lease of each of the instant land, and the Defendant is obligated to collect trees planted on each of the instant land due to restitution to the original state and return of leased property and deliver each of the instant land to the Plaintiff.
2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion
A. The Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff shall exercise the right to purchase trees planted on each of the instant land in accordance with Article 283 of the Civil Act, which is applicable mutatis mutandis under Article 643, since the instant lease agreement’s restoration agreement is null and void.
B. The provision of Article 643 of the Civil Act regarding the lessee's right to demand purchase is a mandatory provision, and thus, an agreement violating this provision is unfavorable to the lessee or the lessee.