1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On August 17, 2007, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on October 2, 2007 due to inheritance by agreement division on August 17, 2007 with respect to the land of 167 square meters in the Seosung-si Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. On October 4, 1994, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to a farming house located on the instant land (hereinafter “the instant house”) due to sale on September 30, 1994.

C. Around September 30, 1994, the Defendant entered into a land lease agreement on the condition that the instant land owned D is paid with 1 math of rice each year without setting a period. D.

Even after succeeding to the status as a lessor of the instant land and the instant lessor due to the death of D, the Plaintiff received payment from the Defendant for the rent of 1 mast of rice each year. Since 2011, the Plaintiff did not receive 1 math of rice agreed to rent.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Defendant did not pay the rent for more than two years, and the lease contract was lawfully terminated since the Defendant’s declaration of termination of the lease contract was served by serving the written complaint of this case.

Even if exercising the right to terminate is unlawful, the notification of termination under Article 635 of the Civil Act can be given. As such, six months have passed since the arrival date of the intention to terminate the contract, the defendant should remove the building of this case that interferes with the plaintiff's exercise of ownership, and deliver the land of this case to the plaintiff

B. The fact that the Defendant, who did not pay two or more vehicles, did not pay to the Plaintiff one rice, the agreed rent for the year 201, after the 2011, does not conflict between the parties.

However, the plaintiff himself/herself expresses his/her intention to terminate the lease contract on the ground that it is not realistic.