임대료
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. On March 3, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant, setting the lease period of KRW 15,00,000 for the land (hereinafter referred to as “instant lease agreement”) on the land (hereinafter referred to as “instant land”) outside the Hancheon-gun, Hongcheon-gun, and seven parcels of land (hereinafter referred to as “instant land”) from March 3, 2014 to December 31, 2016, there is no dispute between the parties, and the Defendant paid the Plaintiff KRW 30,00,000 for the rent corresponding to the period from March 3, 2014 to March 2, 2016.
Therefore, barring special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the rent of KRW 12,493,150 from March 3, 2016 to December 31, 2016, and delay damages therefor.
2. Whether the lease contract of this case is terminated
A. On September 2015, the Defendant’s gist of the Defendant’s assertion requested the Plaintiff to terminate the instant lease agreement on the grounds that the Defendant’s assertion is no longer good for the Haduk farmer’s death. The instant lease agreement was concluded upon the Plaintiff’s consent.
Therefore, the Defendant is not obligated to pay the Plaintiff rent after March 3, 2016.
B. In full view of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to deem that the instant lease agreement was concluded prior to March 2016, based on the respective statements in the evidence Nos. 11, 11 through 5, and 11, and the testimony and arguments of the witness E of this court:
1) It seems that the period of lease of the instant lease contract is set, depending on the fact that the said companies were ordinarily three years, and accordingly, it appears that the Defendant had set the period of lease of the instant lease contract. The Defendant, on October 2015, which was two years before entering into the instant lease contract, took charge of losses to patrolmen on the instant land, harvested virtue on the instant land, and did not use the instant land at all thereafter (the time when the Defendant harvested virtue is not a patrolman on October 2015, but a subsequent 2016, the time when the Defendant harvested virtue was harvested). However, the witness E of the instant court had harvested further virtue in 2015.