beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. On April 22, 2014, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff entered into a loan agreement with the Defendant, who was in charge of the management of State property with respect to the area of 136 square meters in Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City B Miscellaneous land (hereinafter “instant land”), from April 22, 2014 to April 22, 2019, designating the instant land as annual rent of KRW 5,453,920, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to verify that the Plaintiff was in the position of the contractor under the said contract.
2. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in the evidence No. 4, evidence No. 7-2, and evidence No. 1, the Defendant instructed the Plaintiff, on November 20, 2013, to renew the existing State-owned property loan agreement with the maturity of December 31, 2013, and notified the Plaintiff that the contract is renewed under the same conditions as the existing contract if the Plaintiff wishes to renew the contract, and that the Plaintiff should pay the Defendant annual rent of KRW 5,032,50 by January 1, 2014. However, the Plaintiff did not express his/her intent to pay any annual rent to the Defendant by December 31, 2013, and the Plaintiff did not pay any annual rent to the Defendant by January 1, 2014, and the Plaintiff wired KRW 140,000 to the Defendant on May 9, 2014.
According to the above facts, the Plaintiff appears to have expressed his intent not to renew the loan agreement with the Defendant by failing to pay the annual loan to the Defendant by January 1, 2014, and there is no evidence to prove otherwise that the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded the loan agreement with respect to the instant land on April 22, 2014. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion seeking confirmation of the status of the contractor on the premise that the loan agreement for State-owned property was concluded, is without merit.
As above, the Plaintiff appears to have refused to renew the loan agreement at least on January 1, 2014, and thus, the Plaintiff subsequently remitted part of the annual loan fee to the Defendant.