동산수거 및 토지인도 청구의 소
The Defendant: (a) is not less than 7,934m2,00,000
(a) an indication in Appendix 1 Map 4, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75;
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is a person who acquired the ownership of 7,934m2 (hereinafter “instant forest”) in Ansan-si by inheritance through consultation and division on July 24, 2002 and completed the registration of ownership transfer on October 18, 2002.
B. The defendant occupied part of the forest of this case at the time of the non-date, and installed the Yang-wing Station, and occupied and used the forest of this case as indicated in the order at present.
C. On December 18, 2003, the Plaintiff recognized that the Defendant occupied the forest of this case without permission, and prepared and delivered a letter of commitment to transfer the said possession to the Plaintiff by October 2004.
Then, on May 21, 2007, the Plaintiff drafted and delivered a letter of promise to deliver the forest land of this case to the Plaintiff from the Defendant until December 2007.
On the other hand, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant to the effect that the Defendant did not implement the above delivery agreement, on the condition that the Defendant would pay 180,000 won annual rent from the Defendant without setting a separate lease deposit or lease term (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).
In around 2014, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to raise the rent of the instant lease as 2.50,000 won per annum.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts that there is no dispute or do not clearly dispute, each entry and video (including paper numbers) of Gap 1-6 evidence, the result of the appraisal commission to D by this court, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The plaintiff's assertion 1 of the parties' assertion that "I swear to prevent other waste from being discharged" at the time of the lease agreement of this case, but I introduced waste, such as cooling and freezing, into the forest of this case, and he stored it as an oxygen and thereby caused the plaintiff to file a complaint in the surrounding area. Thus, the plaintiff terminated the lease contract of this case due to the defendant's default.