beta
Text
1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.
A. The attached Table 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 31, 32, 33, 25, 25, among the land size of 1,876 square meters in Sungwon-si, Changwon-si, Changwon-si C
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On May 11, 2006, the Plaintiff: (a) leased the land of this case for a period of 200 square meters from Sungwon-si, Sungwon-si, Sungwon-si for a period of 1,876 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”); and (b) changed the content that the instant land was leased on May 11, 201 by setting the annual rent of KRW 7,000,000, and two years for a period of lease; and (c) thereafter, the Plaintiff renewed the relevant contract and thereafter leased the land until now.
B. From around 2008, the Defendant had been engaged in the scrap metal collection business on the land adjacent to the instant land, and there has been a satisfing the part of the attached appraisal map (B), which is a part of the instant land.
C. Rent for the foregoing (B) portion is KRW 491,50,00 from May 11, 2012 to December 31, 2012; KRW 822,800 from January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2013; KRW 941,600 from January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2014; and KRW 972,400 from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2015; KRW 1,05,600 from January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016; KRW 82,80 from January 1, 201 to December 31, 2016 to December 1, 1, 2017; and KRW 1,000 from January 1, 2017; and
[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 4, 6 through 12, the result of the survey and appraisal by the Korea Land Information Corporation, the result of appraisal of rent by appraiser E, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff’s right of lease was terminated on May 2014, and that the Plaintiff’s claim is unlawful as it was filed by a person who is not a party.
However, in a lawsuit for performance, the plaintiff's standing as a party itself is the plaintiff's claim, and the plaintiff's actual right to demand performance or the defendant's actual duty to perform is not required, and whether the right to demand performance or the obligation to perform has been actually fulfilled is only a reason to be determined within the merits, and it is not determined before the merits.
Therefore, we cannot accept the defendant's main defense.
3. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim.