토지인도 등
1. The remainder of the judgment of the court of first instance, excluding the part on the claim for return of unjust enrichment per rent, is as follows.
1. In the first instance court, the Plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendant for removal of the building following the termination of the lease contract, the request for the delivery of land, the claim for restitution of unjust enrichment equivalent to rent, and the claim for damages. The court of first instance rejected the part of the claim for restitution of unjust enrichment, and rendered a judgment citing
Accordingly, since only the defendant appealed against the part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant, the scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the remaining part except the portion of the judgment of the court of first instance for
2. The reasoning for this part of the basic facts is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
3. Determination as to the cause of action
A. 1) The determination on the cause of the claim is based on the following facts: (a) the Defendant delayed to the Plaintiff at a two-year period, including February 2018 and March 2018; (b) the Defendant constructed the instant model house on each of the instant land and used each of the instant land until now, there is no dispute between the parties; and (c) Article 4(1) of the instant secondary lease agreement provides that “Where the lessee fails to pay rent for 2 months, the lessor may terminate the lease agreement immediately without any peremptory notice; and (d) on March 13, 2018, the Plaintiff expressed the Defendant’s intention to terminate the said lease agreement on the ground of the Defendant’s delay in rent pursuant to Article 4 of the said lease agreement to the Plaintiff. Therefore, the instant secondary lease agreement was terminated on the ground of the Defendant’s delay in rent, barring any special circumstance, and the Defendant is obligated to remove the instant model and deliver each of the instant land to the Plaintiff, including the Defendant’s assertion that the instant land is abuse of rights.