logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2018.12.07 2017가단12541
부당이득금반환
Text

1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant B’s KRW 30,052,00 per annum from November 22, 2018 to December 7, 2018; and

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On March 18, 2012, Defendant B entered into a farmland lease agreement with the network D, referred to as the Plaintiff’s agent, whereby the rent was set at KRW 2,000 per year from January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2018 on the rent of approximately 6,500 square meters for the land of approximately 10,00 parcels, the Plaintiff owned, namely, the Plaintiff’s agent, and the said Defendant agreed to reduce the rent if the area falls short of the size of the ginseng.

B. From January 1, 2013 to November 21, 2018, the date of the closure of the instant argument, Defendant B occupied and used part of the said 11 parcel of land, which could be planted by ginseng, for a period of up to six years. Defendant B paid KRW 39 million to D as rent, respectively.

C. On December 7, 2011, Defendant C entered into a land lease agreement with the network D, referred to as the Plaintiff’s agent, on which the rent was set at KRW 1,500 per one year from January 1, 2012 to December 31, 2016, Defendant C agreed that the rent was set at KRW 1,500,000 on the land of approximately 1,172 parcels, i.e., the Plaintiff’s ownership, for five years from January 1, 2012 to December 31, 2016, on condition that D appropriated the adjacent dry field to use KRW 1,500.

Defendant C occupied and used a part of the five parcels of the above land for a period of five years from around May 2012 to May 2017, which is the date of the Plaintiff’s instant lawsuit, and paid KRW 1,250,000 to D as rent around the date of concluding the contract.

[In the absence of any dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply)

2) Each entry and the purport of the whole pleading

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s each lease agreement that the Defendants concluded with the network D is invalid as to the Plaintiff, and since the Defendants occupied and used the Plaintiff’s land without permission, it is reasonable to rent the Plaintiff during that period.

arrow