Attorney Go-dae et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. 5/6 of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

A. The Plaintiff is a company engaged in solar light strings, solar batteries manufacturing, development research, etc., and the Defendant is a company established for entrusted farming, cultivation, production, and distribution of environment-friendly agricultural products.

B. On July 23, 2018, in order to operate solar power generation business, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant to lease the farmland managed by the Defendant from each farmland owner (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”), and on the same day, entered into an agreement to agree on additional matters regarding the said lease agreement (hereinafter “instant agreement”). The main contents of the instant lease agreement and the agreement are as follows.

Land Lease Contract [Article 2] Lease Contract Price, Business Name: solar power generation business, Business Site ① Lot Number: Chungcheong City C District D, E, F D: Farmland No. 3: According to the land list: Land list.Lease area: land size (10,000 square meters) cannot be used for other purposes by a lease contract for solar power generation business.math, acquisition of authorization and permission for business, installation of facilities, and operation of business are entirely responsible for the Plaintiff (Plaintiff).

[Article 3] The term of lease, the term of use of solar power plants: 25 years after the completion of solar power plants, and the date of lease: the payment of rent (Article 4) on December 31, 204 on and after the date of the contract (Article 5) shall be made five times every five years (25 years). (B) at the time of the contract deposit, KRW 220 million shall be paid as KRW 17,60,000 at the time of the contract deposit, and the farmland-owned members shall be managed as separate deposits, and shall be responsible for the sale at the cost of the purchase, and shall be paid as KRW 10,000,000 for up to KRW 10,000,000,000 for the first time, and the amount of the rent shall be set off against Section 3.0,000,000,000 won for the first time.

2. (Contents 1 of the Agreement) The Supplementary Contents of this Agreement shall be secured to be more than 110,000 square meters in only the C District, which is the site subject to this Agreement, and the amount for the area concerned at the time of failure to secure it shall be the return key.2) The down payment (4,400,000 won) shall be used for the purpose of the B (Plaintiff Company) and shall be promptly refunded when the project does not go smoothly as the cause attributable to Party A (Defendant Company).

July 23, 2018. 7. 23. 7. 2018. A representative director of B farming association B, representative director of G (person) land user, A representative director H (person).

C. The Defendant sent the following content-certified mail to the Plaintiff to the effect that the instant lease agreement is terminated, and the said content-certified mail reached the Plaintiff Company on February 7, 2019.

2. On July 23, 2018, the notice of termination of the content-certified wood land lease contract. The farming association corporation did not carry on its business at your company even after the expiration of a large period of time from the date of the contract, and notified you of the termination of the contract.3. Therefore, the farming association corporation at the time of the contract notifies you of the termination of the contract because it did not carry on its business at your company and did not carry on its business at your company. Accordingly, the farming association corporation at the time of the contract notified you of the termination of the contract by designating the down payment, death,00,000 (44,000,000) which it received from your company at the time of the contract, and the interest accrued during the contract was to receive at your company immediately after confirming this letter. If you did not designate the account until February 15, 2019.

[Grounds for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Since the Defendant unilaterally terminated the instant lease contract without any cause attributable to the Plaintiff, the Defendant ought to pay the penalty of KRW 246,000,000 [i.e., KRW 440,000,000 (= KRW 220,000,000), which the Plaintiff keeps as a separate deposit, as well as damages for delay.

B. The defendant's argument

1) The instant lease agreement is invalid since it is not included in the scope of business of an agricultural partnership under Article 11 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Fostering and Supporting Agricultural and Fisheries Enterprises.

2) Even if the instant lease agreement is valid, the Plaintiff did not deposit KRW 176,00,000 on the date of the contract as a separate deposit, and did not pay the rent by January 2, 2019, which was to pay the first minute rent. Therefore, the instant lease agreement was terminated due to the Plaintiff’s cause attributable to the Plaintiff.

3. Determination

Since the Defendant asserts that the instant lease agreement is null and void as a contract that deviates from the business scope of the farming association corporation, it will examine whether the instant lease agreement is null and void in violation of the Farmland Act.

A. Article 121(1) of the Constitution provides that “The State shall endeavor to achieve the principle of light freedom with respect to farmland.” (Article 121(2)) and that “The lease and entrusted management of farmland arising from the enhancement of agricultural productivity and the rational utilization of farmland or due to inevitable circumstances shall be recognized under the conditions as prescribed by the Act.” (Article 121(2)) Accordingly, the Farmland Act provides that a person who rents farmland in violation of Article 23 shall not be punished by a fine not exceeding 10 million won (Article 60 Subparag. 2). In full view of such provisions of the Farmland Act and the Constitution, the purpose of prohibiting farmland lease in principle is to ensure that farmland can be compensated as farmland by a farmer’s use for the purpose of farming, thereby facilitating the acquisition of farmland by a farmer to acquire land for the purpose of speculation, etc., and thus, to realize the principle of free lease of farmland in violation of Article 121(2) of the Farmland Act (Article 97 of the Farmland Act).

B. In the instant case, there is no assertion or proof to acknowledge that the Defendant had the grounds for exception under Article 23 of the Farmland Act that allows the Plaintiff to lease each of the instant real estate corresponding to farmland. Therefore, even though it does not fall under the grounds for exception under the Farmland Act, the instant lease agreement that the Defendant agreed to lease the farmland to the Plaintiff in violation of this provision has no effect from the beginning because it was invalid.

C. However, if the Plaintiff’s assertion is null and void, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff’s assertion that KRW 44,00,000 paid to the Defendant as part of the contract deposit of this case (176,000,000 out of KRW 220,000,000, which was paid to the Defendant as part of the contract deposit of this case (as seen above, the Plaintiff manages in the form of a separate deposit) ought to be returned in unjust enrichment. The Plaintiff’s payment of KRW 44,00,00 to the Defendant as part of the contract deposit of this case as part of the contract deposit of this case is not a dispute between the parties, and the obligation for return of unjust enrichment is liable to the Plaintiff for delay from the date following the receipt of the Defendant’s claim for performance. As such, the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 44,00,000 from May 22, 2019 to the date following the decision that the Defendant’s delivery of a duplicate of the complaint of this case is reasonable.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Hwang Young-young

Judges Park Jong-young