According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the following facts based on the evidence employed by the court below: in particular, the plaintiff and defendant 1 paid 30,000,000 won to the above defendant when they reached an agreement related to the specification of the building of this case; in relation to the groundwater facilities of this case owned and managed by the defendants, the agreement was concluded at the time that "the defendants impliedly recognize the plaintiff's operation of bath bath business from the building of this case"; in light of the circumstances of the judgment, the above 30,000,000 won was paid on the condition that the plaintiff transferred the ownership of the house of this case within the building of this case to the plaintiff, and it cannot be deemed that the above 30,000,000 won was paid for the main purpose of the use of the groundwater facilities of this case, and it cannot be deemed that the two parties agreed to continue the use of the groundwater facilities of this case as long as the plaintiff performed bath business. However, it rejected the defendants's claim for termination of the lease contract of this case on March 308.

However, we cannot accept the above judgment of the court below.

First, most of the instant groundwater facilities are installed in the site and the underground space of the Defendants, and cannot be seen as being used by the Defendants while occupying and using them. Therefore, it is difficult to deem the agreement related to the instant groundwater as a lease agreement for groundwater facilities. This is merely an agreement with the Defendants’ acceptance of the supply and use of groundwater through pipes.

In addition, in principle, the expenses for the execution of the building name map are to be borne by the Defendants. Thus, it cannot be readily concluded that the Plaintiff took economic benefits by exempting the Defendants from the duty of surrender and withdrawing the application for compulsory execution under the agreement of this case. The house-to-house (gas boiler, light boiler, clothes, etc.) within the building of this case is mostly consistent with the building of this case and included in the subject of auction. Since Nama had already been used for 9 years, it is almost little value for the Plaintiff (the Plaintiff was replaced immediately after the agreement of this case). In full view of the fact that the above 30,000,000 won was paid for the continued supply of groundwater, it should be deemed that the Plaintiff is the price for the continued supply of groundwater (the original judgment is to obtain a net profit of 4.5 million won per month when the Plaintiff uses groundwater. However, it cannot be deemed that the Defendants had the Plaintiff use the ground water of this case without receiving any equivalent consideration, and it cannot be deemed that the Defendants did not gain any profit from the Plaintiff’s use of groundwater as 00.

Furthermore, as long as the agreement of this case, which is a disposal document, expressly states that "the plaintiff may carry on a bath business in the building of this case" in relation to the deadline for the use of groundwater, such agreement is an agreement with the deadline for allowing the plaintiff to use groundwater facilities for a reasonable period until the plaintiff can carry on a bath business in the building of this case.

Therefore, as long as the plaintiff continues a bath business in the building of this case, the defendants are obligated to permit the use of groundwater by the plaintiff. Therefore, since the contract was already terminated by deeming that the agreement related to the ground water of this case as a lease agreement without setting a deadline, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts against the rules of evidence that the plaintiff cannot use the ground water of this case, and by interpreting the contract related to the ground water of this case.

2. As to the claim for damages

As seen in paragraph (1), as long as the Plaintiff is deemed to have the right to continue to use groundwater, the Defendants suffered losses during the entire period during which they prevented the use of groundwater, so the lower judgment which cited only a claim for damages for a certain period of time is also erroneous.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Hong-hoon (Presiding Justice)