Plaintiff (Law Firm Il Digital, Attorneys Shin Jong-chul et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant (Law Firm Jeong-dong International Law, Attorney Lee Dong-dae, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

November 26, 2009

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The defendant shall remove the greenhouses and low temperature storage rooms listed in the attached list 1, 2, and 3 above list 4 to 19 of the same list, and remove or take the remains, materials, etc. located in the greenhouses, and deliver the land to the plaintiff, and pay the money calculated by the ratio of KRW 500,000 per month from December 1, 2008 to the date of removal of the said greenhouses and low temperature storage depots and delivery of the said land.

1. Basic facts

A. On December 1, 2002, the Plaintiff leased (hereinafter “the lease of this case”) the land indicated in the attached list 1, 2, and 3 (hereinafter “the farmland of this case”) to the Defendant by setting the annual rent of KRW 4.5 million and the lease period from December 1, 2002 to December 1, 2007 (hereinafter “the lease of this case”).

B. From that time to that time, the Defendant installed 14 plastic greenhouses for the purpose of cultivating small plants listed in the attached list 4 to 19 on the farmland of this case, one plastic greenhouse of the management Dong, one low temperature storage house, and cultivated vesium.

[Reasons for Recognition] The purport of the whole pleadings as to the absence of dispute, Gap 1, 2, 5 through 9 (including the number of branch offices), Gap 3 and 4 video (including the number of branch offices)

2. The parties' assertion;

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff expressed his/her intent to refuse the renewal of the lease of this case to the Defendant before the expiration of the lease of this case, and even if the lease of this case was implicitly renewed pursuant to Article 25 of the Farmland Act, since the Plaintiff expressed his/her intent of termination at the time of the expiration of the lease of this case, pursuant to Article 635 of the Civil Act, since the lease of this case was terminated at the end of six months from December 1, 2007, which is the expiration date of the lease of this case, the Defendant is obligated to remove the plastic houses, etc. installed on the farmland of this case and deliver the farmland of this case to the Plaintiff, and pay rent, etc.

B. Summary of the defendant's assertion

Since the lease of this case was implicitly renewed pursuant to Article 25 of the Farmland Act, the right to lease, use, and profit from the farmland of this case for five years from December 1, 2007 to November 30, 2012 under the same conditions as the previous lease is entitled.

3. Determination

A. Whether an implied renewal is made

The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant expressed his intent to refuse the renewal before the expiration of the lease term of this case, but there is no evidence to acknowledge this. Therefore, the lease of this case was implicitly renewed under the same conditions as the previous lease at the time of the termination of the lease term.

B. The meaning of "the same condition" under Article 25 of the Farmland Act

The first sentence of Article 639(1) of the Civil Act, which is a general law concerning the lease, provides that "if a lessee fails to raise any objection within a reasonable period after the expiration of the lease, the lessor shall be deemed to have leased the object under the same conditions as the former one if he/she continues to use the leased object and take profits therefrom," and the second sentence of the same Article provides that "However, a party may notify the termination pursuant to the provisions of Article 635," and thus, in principle, the lease shall be deemed to have been leased under the same conditions as the former lease, in principle, if the lease contract is implicitly renewed, but the exception

As in the instant case, the Farmland Act, which is a special law for the Civil Act, provides that the farmland lease is governed by the provisions of the Farmland Act. Article 25 of the Farmland Act provides, “If a lessee does not notify the lessee that the lease will not be renewed by no later than three months prior to the expiration of the term of the lease (referring to the lease to a person who intends to operate an agricultural business; hereafter the same shall apply in this Article) or that the terms and conditions of the lease will be changed, the lease shall be deemed to have been renewed under the same conditions as those of the previous lease at the time when the term of the lease expires, it conforms with

Therefore, since the lease of this case is implicitly renewed under the same condition as the lease of this case at the expiration of the lease term, the above assertion that assumes the termination of the lease of this case is rejected at the time of the expiration of the lease term.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

Judges Choi Jin-ho (Presiding Judge)