Cases recognizing the termination of the lease agreement;

Since the plaintiff is missing while he was managing the building owned by the defendant by leasing it from the defendant and leaving it to the non-party, if the defendant occupied it and operated the above female house, the lease contract between the plaintiff and the defendant was legally rescinded by implied agreement.

Article 618 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 73Da357 delivered on June 23, 1973

Plaintiff

Defendant

Daegu District Court (72 Gohap30) in the first instance

The original judgment shall be modified as follows:

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 572,00 won with an annual interest rate of 5% from November 24, 1971 to the date of full payment.

The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be ten minutes of the first and second trials, and one of them shall be borne by the plaintiff, and the remainder shall be borne by the defendant.

The above paragraph (2) can be provisionally executed.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 60 million won with an annual interest rate of 5 percent from November 24, 1971 to the date of full payment.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

A provisional execution may be carried out only under paragraph (1).

The original judgment shall be revoked.

Costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant in both the first and second trials, and the purport of the claim

In full view of the testimony of Non-party 1, Non-party 2, and Non-party 3 of the court below and the whole purport of the parties' arguments as to the contents of Gap evidence Nos. 1 (real estate lease contract), 2 (Receipt), and 3 (Promise Bill), which are not disputed in the formation, the plaintiff shall pay the above security deposit to the defendant on July 27, 1971, and the defendant's testimony of the non-party 1, non-party 2, and the non-party 3 of the court below and the non-party 30 square meters of the building No. 1, 700, 700, 600, monthly rent No. 1000, and 300, and the lease period shall be two years, and the non-party 6 of the court below's decision shall be excluded from the above management testimony on July 27, 1971, and the non-party 4 shall be excluded from the above management testimony. Thus, the above non-party 6 of the court below shall be excluded from the above management testimony.

Thus, the defendant has the duty to return the above deposit amount of 600,000 won that he received to the plaintiff.

Although the plaintiff's attorney shall pay 50,00 won monthly rent to the defendant as 50,00 won per month, the remaining monthly rent of 160,00 won (40,000 won per month from July 27, 190 to November 23, 200). Thus, the plaintiff's attorney cannot claim that the above monthly rent should be deducted from the above deposit money, but it is obvious that the defendant's attorney agreed that the above monthly rent should be paid 10,000 won per annum as well as the above monthly rent of 10,00 won for the defendant's agent's above reasons, and the defendant's attorney cannot claim that the above monthly rent of 5,00 won is less than 10,000 won for the non-party's new evidence that the non-party 4, who is the plaintiff's employee, should bear the above 7,000 won amount of damages for the non-party 1's new evidence.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the scope of seeking payment of 572,00 won by deducting 28,000 won from the above 60,000 won for the above deposit deposit, and the amount equivalent to 5% per annum from November 24, 1971 to the date of full payment, and the remainder of this claim is without merit, and it is dismissed. Since the original judgment different from this conclusion is unfair, it is so revised as per Disposition under Article 386 of the Civil Procedure Act, and as to the bearing of the costs of lawsuit, it is decided as per Disposition by applying Article 99 of the same Act.

Judges Lee Jung-gu (Presiding Judge)