logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2019.10.18 2019나50999
부당이득금반환
Text

1. The part against the Defendants in the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the Plaintiff corresponding to the revoked part is the Defendants.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On March 18, 2012, D entered into a farmland lease agreement with Defendant B and the Plaintiff on behalf of the Plaintiff on a condition that approximately 6,500 square meters of land on ten parcels, namely, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, the Plaintiff owned, shall be KRW 2,000 per one-year rental fee, and from January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2018, the term of lease shall be fixed and leased from January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2018. If Defendant B depth ginseng and then falls short of the area, D agreed to reduce the rental fee.

B. From January 1, 2013 to November 21, 2018, the date of the closing of the first instance trial of this case, Defendant B occupied and used part of the said 11 parcel of land, which could be planted by ginseng, for a six-year period. Defendant B paid to D the rent of KRW 39 million on March 19, 2012, and KRW 30 million on December 10, 2015.

C. On December 7, 2011, D signed a lease agreement with Defendant C and the Plaintiff to lease approximately KRW 1,172 on the land of four parcels, other than 1,50,000 per one-year rent, from January 1, 2012 to December 31, 2016 (i.e., each of the above lease agreements entered into by the Defendant, “each of the instant lease agreements,” and (ii) to pay KRW 1,125,50,000,00 as the condition that D would use 1,50,000 neighboring dry field together.

Defendant C paid KRW 1,1250,000 to D as rent around the date of concluding the above contract, and occupied and used a part of five parcels of the above land from around 2012 to May 2017, which is the Plaintiff’s filing date of the instant lawsuit.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion D is without obtaining the power of representation on the conclusion of each of the instant lease agreements from the Plaintiff, and the Defendants and each of the instant agreements.

arrow