토지인도 등
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
[Claim]
1. Basic facts
A. On July 196, the Plaintiff, the owner of the instant land, leased the instant land to the Defendant without a deposit, without fixing a period of one million won per annum (the increase in KRW 1.5 million thereafter) (hereinafter “the instant lease”), and the Defendant newly constructed the instant building on the instant land and completed the registration of initial ownership on October 15, 198.
B. On May 13, 2015, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a certificate of content, including the declaration of intent to terminate the instant lease agreement, since the Defendant was in arrears with the three-year period of rent, and the said certificate reaches the Defendant around that time.
hereinafter referred to as "Notice of Termination on May 13, 2015"
【Facts without dispute over the grounds for recognition, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The parties' assertion
A. The Defendant asserted that the instant lease contract was terminated on the grounds of the Defendant’s delayed payment from May 13, 2015 to the date of 2015. As such, the instant lease contract was terminated.
Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to remove the instant building to the Plaintiff, deliver the instant land, and pay unjust enrichment equivalent to rent or rent from July 1, 2012 to the completion date of delivery of the instant land.
B. The Defendant asserted that the rent that became due on June 30, 2013 was paid to the Plaintiff through the employee of the Ccafeteria operated by the Plaintiff, and that the rent that became due on June 30, 2014 is overdue. However, on June 30, 2015, the rent that became due on June 30, 2015 did not become due at the time when the Plaintiff declared the intention of termination, and thereafter, the Defendant deposited KRW 3 million with the Plaintiff on June 30, 2014 and repaid the rent that became due on June 30, 2015.
Therefore, the Plaintiff’s expression of intent to terminate the instant lease agreement was made under the condition that only one lease is delayed.