토지인도 등
1. The part of the lower judgment against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) regarding the counterclaim is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the reasoning of the lower judgment’s judgment and the record, the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) leased each of the instant real estate to the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (Counterclaim Plaintiff (hereinafter “Defendant”) for one year from April 13, 201 to April 12, 2012. The Defendant paid the Plaintiff the annual rent of KRW 4.5 million to the Plaintiff. After the lease period expires, the Defendant occupied each of the instant real estate by March 22, 2013, and each of the instant real estate consists of orchard, miscellaneous land, and storage facilities on the ground.
After the expiration of the above lease term, the Plaintiff sought compensation for damages equivalent to the rent on the ground that the Defendant’s possession of each of the instant real estate constitutes an illegal possession with no legitimate title.
As a counterclaim, the Defendant sought a return of unjust enrichment equivalent to KRW 4.5 million already paid as rent on the ground that each of the instant real estate constitutes farmland under the Farmland Act, and the instant lease agreement is null and void.
If the lease contract of this case is null and void, the plaintiff asserted that the defendant is offset against the above claim for return of unjust enrichment claimed by the defendant on the ground that the defendant occupied and used each of the real estate of this case without title during the term of lease.
The court below accepted the plaintiff's claim for damages equivalent to the rental fees after the termination of the lease term of this case, and accepted the plaintiff's claim for the counterclaim against the defendant, and also, as to the counterclaim against the defendant, ① the rental fees received by the plaintiff for the contract term of this case are governed by an invalid contract in violation of the Farmland Act, and since the plaintiff is a malicious beneficiary, the plaintiff is obligated to return it to the defendant. ② Furthermore, the plaintiff violated the Farmland Act