토지인도 등
1. The Defendant: (a) the Plaintiff (designated party) shall have the area of 519 square meters, the area of 379 square meters, the area of 660 square meters for E parking lots, and the area of 1,343 square meters for F forest.
According to Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 and Gap evidence Nos. 5, the following facts are as follows: ① The plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the Appointor G are the co-ownership of 1/2 of the size of each 519 square meters in the previous C, D, 379 square meters in the previous D, E, 60 square meters in the E, F, forest and fields, and 1/2 of the size of each 1,343 square meters in the F, and ② the plaintiff (Appointed Party) on July 1, 2009 that the above real estate was leased to the defendant on July 1, 2009 by setting the lease period of 2 million won in the deposit, the rent period of 40 million won in the rent year, and ③ the plaintiff (Appointed Party) notified the defendant of no further extension of the above lease contract on May 2015.
According to the above facts, the above lease contract was lawfully terminated from May 2015 to November 2015 after six months prescribed in Article 635 (2) 1 of the Civil Act, barring any special circumstance. Thus, the defendant is obligated to collect stone, etc. installed on each of the above lands from the plaintiff (appointed party) and the designated party and deliver each of the above lands.
On February 2016, the defendant asserts that he paid the annual rent of 1 million won to the plaintiff (appointed party)'s account. According to the evidence No. 1, the defendant's deposit of 3 million won to the plaintiff (appointed party)'s account on February 16, 2016 is recognized, but it is insufficient to recognize that the above money was paid as a rent under the agreement with the plaintiff (appointed party). There is no other evidence to acknowledge this differently.
Moreover, even if the above amount was paid in rent, the Defendant recognized that it was a rent from June 2016. Thus, the lease contract between the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the Defendant was terminated as of the date of closing argument of this case.
In the end, the defendant's assertion is without merit.
For the same reason, the plaintiff's claim shall be accepted for the same reason, and it is so decided as per Disposition.