beta
Text
1. The defendant
A. Removal of three greenhouses installed on the ground B 357 square meters in Jeonbuk-gun, Jeonbuk-gun, and the said removal.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Defendant, around 2003, has installed three vinyl houses (hereinafter “instant vinyl houses”) on the ground of B 357 square meters in the Donju-gun, Jeonbuk-gun, Jeonbuk-gun (hereinafter “instant land”) leased by the Plaintiff and cultivated crops.
B. Under the agreement with the Plaintiff, the Defendant paid KRW 100,000 per month as rent for the instant land, and around December 2014, the Defendant agreed to remove the instant vinyl by March 31, 2015 to the Plaintiff and deliver the instant land to the Plaintiff.
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, each entry of Gap 2-4 (including virtual number), and the purport of whole pleadings
2. In the instant case where the Plaintiff seeks to determine on this safety defense against the Defendant, the Defendant asserted that the instant lawsuit was unlawful since the Plaintiff’s lawsuit was brought against the Defendant without a resolution of the general meeting of clans. However, if the written evidence No. 4 added the purport of the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff may hold a clan general meeting on April 8, 2015 to recognize the fact that the instant lawsuit was brought under its resolution. Thus, the Defendant’s defense on this issue is without merit.
3. According to the facts established on the basis of the judgment on the merits, the Defendant is obligated to remove the instant vinyl house to the Plaintiff, deliver the instant land to the Plaintiff, and pay for unjust enrichment equivalent to rent or rent.
In regard to this, the defendant asserted that he has the right to continue to use the land of this case pursuant to Article 24-2 (4) of the Farmland Act, which provides for the term of lease of not less than three years, but as seen earlier, in this case where the defendant leased and used the land of this case from around 2003, notwithstanding the above provision of the Farmland Act, the removal of the vinyl house of this case and the delivery agreement on the land against the plaintiff of this case is valid. Thus, it is a different premise.