beta
(영문) 전주지방법원 2020.09.18 2019가단8032

토지인도

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. In Kim Jong-si, the Plaintiff owned D from May 16, 1979 with respect to the instant land, 4,270 square meters in C forest land (hereinafter “instant land”) and on the ground fraternity thereof (hereinafter “instant fraternity”; and the instant land and the instant fraternity were owned from May 16, 1979. The Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on the instant real estate on February 25, 2013.

B. From around 1996, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with D on the instant real estate and used the instant real estate. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant, such as transfer of land (the Jeonju District Court 2014Kadan25919) due to disputes over the lease between the Defendant and the Defendant. On April 29, 2016, the following major adjustments were established between the Plaintiff and the Defendant:

The Plaintiff shall pay the Defendant the instant land amounting to KRW 2,00,000 per annum from May 1, 2016 to December 31, 2022, and the date of payment for the pertinent year.

1. The lease shall be made until 31.

(hereinafter referred to as “the lease of this case.” The Defendant confirmed that the instant real estate was delivered to the Plaintiff by the end of the lease of this case, and that it would not be exercised by giving up all rights that may be held as lessee or possessor and giving up the said rights.

In the event that the Defendant has failed to pay the rent two times or more, the lease of this case is terminated on the date of delinquency, and the Defendant has withdrawn the real estate of this case from the country to the Plaintiff as it is, and has waived all rights that may be held as the lessee or possessor and has not been exercised.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The judgment of the court below is that the defendant illegally raised cattle and dog in the land of this case, and approximately 17,000 of the abandoned chickens were illegally buried in the land of this case, and it is the usage prescribed in the lease of this case.