Plaintiff (Law Firm Il Digital, Attorneys Shin Jong-chul et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant (Law Firm Jeong-dong International Law, Attorneys Seo Dong-hee et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

July 23, 2010

Incheon District Court Decision 2009Gau11767 Decided January 14, 2010

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff falling under the following order shall be revoked.

On December 1, 2012, the Defendant, upon arrival of December 1, 2012, shall apply to the Plaintiff:

(a) remove vinyls and low temperature storage depotss listed in the annexed list 1, 2, and 3 lists 4 to 19 of the same list on land;

(b) Collecting or taking away, or disposing of, the vegetables, materials, etc. located in the relevant vinyl house;

(c) the above land is transferred;

D. From December 1, 2012 to the date of removal of the said vinyl house and the low temperature storage house and the delivery of the said land, the amount of money shall be paid at the rate of 500,000 won per month.

2. The plaintiff's remaining appeal is dismissed.

3. 1/4 of the total costs of litigation shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

4. The above paragraphs 1 and 2 can be provisionally executed.

The judgment of the court below is revoked. The plaintiff seeks to pay to the defendant an amount equivalent to KRW 500,000 per month from December 1, 2008 to the date of the removal of the said plastic house and the low temperature storage house and the delivery of the said land, as an immediate performance of the obligation as set forth in Section 1-A through (c) of the disposition, and from December 1, 2008.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for this Court’s reasoning is as follows: ① “The annual rent of KRW 4.5 million” in Section 7 of Section 2 of the judgment of the first instance court is as follows: ① “The annual rent of KRW 4.5 million (the annual rent of KRW 6 million was in fact paid by the Defendant for the re-contract of December 26, 2008)” (the annual rent of KRW 6 million increased by 2.5% for the re-contract of December 26, 2008). ② The Plaintiff’s argument between Section 9 and Section 10 is as stated in the reasoning for the judgment of the first instance court, except for adding the following judgment as to the Plaintiff’s argument between Section 4.9 and Section 10. Therefore, it is cited by applying the main sentence

【Additional Judgment Matters】

(c) Need to be claimed in advance;

Meanwhile, even if the farmland lease contract of this case is implicitly renewed, it is acknowledged that the Plaintiff expressed his intention to refuse to renew the farmland lease contract of this case to the Defendant on December 1, 2007, and there is no counter-proof, and thereafter, it is apparent that the Plaintiff seeks to remove a vinyl house and deliver land by filing a lawsuit of this case. Since the Plaintiff expressed his intention to refuse to renew the renewed lease contract of this case, the lease of this case is terminated upon November 30, 2012, which is the expiration date of the renewed lease contract of this case.

In addition, the Defendant requires the renewal of the previous lease agreement, and in particular, the phrase “the removal of vinyl houses and delivery of land, etc. by November 30, 2012” raises an objection to the decision of the court on the recommendation of reconciliation, and is disputing the obligation to remove vinyl houses or to deliver farmland and the rent thereof before the expiration of the renewed lease term, and in light of the size of the instant vinyl houses and other various circumstances revealed in the course of pleadings, etc., the Defendant cannot expect the voluntary performance of the renewed lease term at the expiration of the renewed lease term. Therefore, the Plaintiff is also deemed to need to file a claim in advance as a lawsuit for future performance.

(d) A vinyl removal, delivery of farmland, or return of unjust enrichment;

Therefore, the Defendant, the lessee of the farmland of this case, is obligated to pay the Plaintiff, the lessor, the amount of money calculated by the rate of the rent for the use of the farmland of this case (6 million won ±6 million won ± 12) calculated on or after December 1, 2012, which is the day following the expiration of the renewed lease term, to the Plaintiff, the lessor. The Plaintiff, the lessee of the farmland of this case, removed the vinyl and the low temperature storage house as indicated in the attached Table 4. through 19, and collected or taken materials inside the vinyl, and deliver the farmland of this case from December 1, 2012 to the date of the removal of low temperature storage house and the delivery of the farmland of this case, and as such, the Plaintiff’s claim for unjust enrichment after December 1, 2008 ± 300,000,000 won, which is the sum of the rent for the use of the farmland of this case (the Plaintiff’s claim for unjust enrichment from the previous period to December 1, 2008).

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is partially justified within the above scope of recognition.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed without merit. Since the judgment of the court of first instance partially accepted the plaintiff's appeal and the part against the plaintiff as ordered by this court among the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against which the court of first instance accepted part of the plaintiff's appeal and revoked the part against the plaintiff as ordered by this court. The defendant ordered the plaintiff to remove the above plastic houses, collect the collection, transfer the land, and pay the unjust enrichment. The plaintiff's remaining appeal is dismissed without merit.

[Attachment]

Judges Cho Jong-soo (Presiding Judge)