토지인도 등
1. Of the part against the principal lawsuit in the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) that orders performance below.
1. The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in each description or image of Gap evidence 1, 3, or 5 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) by reference to the whole purport of the pleadings:
On April 13, 2011, the Plaintiff entered into a lease contract with the Defendant for each real estate listed in the separate sheet owned (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”) from April 13, 2011 to April 12, 2013, with a fixed amount of 30,00 m30,000 annual rice (hereinafter “instant lease contract”) (hereinafter “instant lease contract”), and received KRW 4,50,000,000 from the Defendant and delivered each of the instant real estate to the Defendant.
B. At the time of entering into the instant lease agreement, each of the lands listed in attached Tables 1, 2, and 4 (hereinafter “each of the instant lands”) was used as farmland, such as culture and cultivation.
C. On February 2012, the Plaintiff agreed with the Defendant to reduce the term of the instant lease agreement by April 12, 2012.
2. Judgment on the principal lawsuit
A. Since the Defendant’s request for delivery of each of the instant real estate on March 22, 2013 recognized that the real estate was delivered to the Plaintiff on March 22, 2013, the part demanding the delivery of each of the instant real estate is without merit.
B. (1) Claim for damages (A) The purport of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the instant lease agreement was terminated on April 12, 2012, and the Defendant continued to occupy and use each of the instant real estate even thereafter, thereby causing damages equivalent to the Plaintiff’s fee, and thus, is obliged to compensate the Plaintiff for such damages.
(B) The purport of the Defendant’s assertion is that the instant lease agreement is null and void in violation of Article 23 of the Farmland Act, and thus, the Defendant is not obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount equivalent to the rent of each of
(2) (A) Determination is made on the validity of the instant lease agreement, Article 23 of the Farmland Act, in exceptional cases as provided in each subparagraph.